Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Carbon Tax

A Conservative Victory Would End Liberal Oil and Gas Sector Assault and Help Diversify Away From the US

Published

12 minute read

From EnergyNow.ca

By Jim Warren

A minority Liberal victory in our upcoming federal election has the potential to take anti-Ottawa sentiment on the prairies to a whole new level. That’s because a Carney government can be expected to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of millions of Western Canadians. It’s what Liberals do.

Obviously, one of the most pressing economic concerns of the oil producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan is the collection of Liberal policies which are restricting growth in Canada’s non-renewable resource sector. Liberal anti-oil and anti-pipeline measures have hamstrung the capacity of the producing provinces to increase the revenue generating capacity of the oil and gas sector. They have restricted the ability of prairie people to benefit from the ingenuity, sweat and capital they have invested in their resources industries. The right to those benefits was supposedly guaranteed under the Canadian constitution.

It is far from clear that a Carney government would get behind developing increased export capacity for oil and gas. Previous statements Carney has made in support of new pipelines were clearly disingenuous. He supported a revival of Energy East when speaking in Kelowna. He went so far as to suggest the emergency powers of the government could be used to get it built. But during the French leadership debate he said Quebec would be given the power to veto any such project. Carney’s handlers should tell him it is impossible for both statements to be true at the same time.

Furthermore, Carney has expressed no intention of dismantling the labyrinthine approval processes and the legalized disruption of construction which makes export pipelines impossible to build (at least without incurring jaw dropping cost overruns). If those policy measures remain in place any pipeline given some sort of special approval, could still remain vulnerable to legal challenges and retroactive cancellation and shut down.

Let’s say special emergency approval for a pipeline is granted but the Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) and other onerous environmental regulations are allowed to remain in place. Couldn’t construction still be delayed or the line re-routed whenever a bird nest, arrowhead or rare plant is found on the right-of-way? Will protesters who block construction be treated with kid gloves or more like horn-honking truckers? Those are the sorts of issues that contributed to the $34 billion in cost overruns that plagued construction of the TMX.

There are, no doubt, measures a federal government could take to minimize these sorts of threats. Nevertheless, many of us expect a Carney government would not be prepared to provide truly bullet proof guarantees to new pipeline projects. The Liberals and their core supporters are too deeply invested in climate alarmist ideology to allow for the unfettered completion of pipelines or continued growth in oil and gas production.

The Liberals have already shown us who they are. They were very reluctant to enforce the law against environmental protesters during the period leading up to the cancellation of the Northern Gateway and the Keystone XL. In fact they awarded federal grants to activist organizations that helped organize protests and anti-pipeline court challenges.

Retroactive cancellation of previously approved oil production projects is a tactic recently embraced by environmental groups like Greenpeace in the UK. The Liberals’ allies in the environmental movement can be expected to apply a similar approach to new and pre-existing pipelines in Canada. The activists will no doubt be able to rely on grants from the Liberal government to fund their efforts.

There are approximately 75,000 people directly employed in extracting and transporting gas and oil on the prairies and about twice that number whose jobs rely indirectly on the sector. Several hundreds of thousands more understand how the ripple effects of the changing fortunes of the resource sector affect their province’s economies. For the past nine years those people’s interests and complaints have been ignored, frustrated and attacked by the Liberals and their allies in the environmental movement.

If the past is prologue, it is a safe bet the prairie West will be ignored and abused again should the Liberals pull off a minority election win. Their backers in the Bloc and NDP will insist on it. However, rejecting the reasonable aspirations of a large minority or majority of the citizens in the two major oil producing provinces is guaranteed to produce a precipitous decline in national harmony.

It is true there are large numbers of low information voters and woke supporters of environmental extremism in some of the big cities in the West. They are likely to elect a Liberal or two to the next parliament. But they do not represent the views of the people who create most of the wealth in the West—the people who risk their own capital and help build a more vibrant economy, as well as most of the people whose jobs involve sweating. Annoying these people, in order to garner support among the environmentally sanctimonious in Montreal and Toronto, will not make for a stronger, more united Canada.

Similarly, there are tens of thousands of farm operators who are vehemently opposed to Liberal backed measures that will limit their use of fertilizer and penalize them for owning cattle. Saskatchewan’s potash miners won’t take kindly to the imposition of export taxes on their products to save jobs in Ontario and Quebec. These are all capable people—and they don’t take being pushed around lightly.

Central Canadian fantasies about placing export taxes on Western oil shipped to the US, have already angered people in the producing provinces. Anti-Ottawa feelings on the prairies would surpass the boiling point if a Carney government actually attempted to do it.

An all too common response of federal Liberals and the talking heads in the mainstream media to spikes in Western alienation is to smugly claim, “They’ll get over it.” Don’t count on it.

Following a Liberal election win, expect court challenges over the abrogation provincial rights under the constitution and outright defiance of federal policies detrimental to Alberta and Saskatchewan. The federal government may face the prospect of having to arrest popular politicians for refusing to comply with unfair federal policies.

Cabinet Ministers in Saskatchewan have already said they would risk imprisonment for refusing to charge the carbon tax on natural gas used for home heating. The Saskatchewan government has also refused to comply with Liberal regulations requiring coal-fired power plants to be shut down by 2035. They have indicated the province can simply not afford to transition to renewables or nuclear within such a tight time frame.

Carney has had nothing to say about rescinding inane one-size-fits-all federal environmental regulations. Included in the class of mindless federal policies are plans to force people from the colder parts of the prairies to purchase electric cars and heat pumps even though they don’t function properly here in winter. We can expect many prairie people to resist the compulsory transition to EVs. And, as is the case with Liberal gun control laws, governments on the prairies are likely to ensure federal rules are lightly enforced.

More significantly, Carney would be confronted by a campaign to make significant changes to Canadian federalism that will provide greater autonomy to the prairies provinces. An additional bottom line demand will be the creation of constitutionally guaranteed energy corridors, allowing for the construction and protection of pipelines from the prairies to Canada’s coasts.

We are at a critical inflection point in our history that could influence the economic fortunes of Alberta and Saskatchewan for the rest of this century. There is a good chance that during the last half of this century renewable energy will be displacing non-renewable energy at a rate that reduces global demand for oil and gas. If this turns out to be the case, failing to get new pipelines built in the next decade will virtually guarantee a significant portion of Canada’s proven oil reserves will remain forever stranded. Hundreds of billions in potential revenues could been lost. That is, by the way, one of the goals shared by Mark Carney and the alarmist factions of the environmental movement.

Barring substantive reforms to federalism, including meaningful concessions to the producing provinces, the prospects for national harmony and less fractious federal-provincial relations are bleak. A Conservative majority victory in the upcoming federal election is clearly more likely to result in fair treatment for Alberta and Saskatchewan than a win for the Carney Liberals. Mark Carney doesn’t appear to realize heightened levels of alienation in the producing provinces have the potential to raise discontent to levels not seen since the days of the National Energy Program.

The next election could well be our last chance to ensure the producing provinces are permitted to maximize their constitutionally guaranteed capacity to generate non-renewable resource revenues.

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

2025 Federal Election

ASK YOURSELF! – Can Canada Endure, or Afford the Economic Stagnation of Carney’s Costly Climate Vision?

Published on

From Energy Now 

By Tammy Nemeth and Ron Wallace

Carney’s Costly Climate Vision Risks Another “Lost Liberal Decade”

A carbon border tax isn’t the simple offset it’s made out to be—it’s a complex regulatory quagmire poised to reshape Canada’s economy and trade. In its final days, the Trudeau government made commitments to mandate climate disclosures, preserve carbon taxes (both consumer and industrial) and advance a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Newly minted Prime Minister Mark Carney, the godfather of climate finance, has embraced and pledged to accelerate these commitments, particularly the CBAM. Marketed as a strategic shift to bolster trade with the European Union (EU) and reduce reliance on the U.S., a CBAM appears straightforward: pay a domestic carbon price, or face an EU import fee. But the reality is far more extensive and invasive. Beyond the carbon tariffs, it demands rigorous emissions accounting, third-party verification and a crushing compliance burden.

Although it has been little debated, Carney’s proposed climate plan would transform and further undermine Canadian businesses and the economy. Contrary to Carney’s remarks in mid-March, the only jurisdiction that has implemented a CBAM is the EU, with implementation not set until 2026.  Meanwhile, the UK plans to implement a CBAM for 1 January 2027. In spite of Carney’s assertion that such a mechanism will be needed for trade with emerging Asian markets, the only Asian country that has released a possible plan for a CBAM is Taiwan. Thus, a Canadian CBAM would only align Canada with the EU and possibly the UK – assuming that those policies are implemented in face of the Trump Administrations’ turbulent tariff policies.

With the first phase of the EU’s CBAM, exporters of cement, iron and steel, aluminum, fertiliser, electricity and hydrogen must have paid a domestic carbon tax or the EU will charge more for those imports. But it’s much more than that. Even if exporting companies have a domestic carbon tax, they will still have to monitor, account for, and verify their CO2 emissions to certify the price they have paid domestically in order to trade with the EU. The purported goal is to reduce so-called “carbon leakage” which makes imports from emission-intensive sectors more costly in favour of products with fewer emissions.  Hence, the EU’s CBAM is effectively a CO2 emissions importation tariff equivalent to what would be paid by companies if the products were produced under the EU’s carbon pricing rules under their Emissions Trading System (ETS).

While that may sound simple enough, in practice the EU’s CBAM represents a significant expansion of government involvement with a new layer of bureaucracy. The EU system will require corporate emissions accounting of the direct and indirect emissions of production processes to calculate the embedded emissions. This type of emissions accounting is a central component of climate disclosures like those released by the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board.

Hence, the CBAM isn’t just a tariff: It’s a system for continuous emissions monitoring and verification. Unlike traditional tariffs tied to product value, the CBAM requires companies exporting to the EU to track embedded emissions and submit verified data to secure an EU-accredited verification. Piling complexity atop cost, importers must then file a CBAM declaration, reviewed and certified by an EU regulatory body, before obtaining an import certificate.

This system offers little discernible benefit for the environment. The CBAM ignores broader environmental regulatory efforts, fixating solely on taxation of embedded emissions. For Canadian exporters, Carney’s plan would impose an expensive, intricate web of compliance monitoring, verification and fees accompanied by uncertain administrative penalties.

Hence, any serious pivot to the EU to offset trade restrictions in the U.S. will require a transformation of Canada’s economy, one with a questionable return on investment.  Carney’s plan to diversify and accelerate trade with the EU, whose economies are increasingly shackled with burdensome climate-related policies, ignores the potential of successful trade negotiations with the U.S., India or emerging Asian countries. The U.S., our largest and most significant trading partner, has abandoned the Paris Climate Agreement, ceased defence of its climate-disclosure rule and will undoubtedly be seeking fewer, not more, climate-related tariffs. Meanwhile, despite rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada, Carney has doubled down on his support for the Trudeau governments’ Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) and confirmed intentions to proceed with an emissions cap on oil and gas production. Carney’s continuance of the Trudeau governments’ regulatory agenda combined with new, proposed trade policies will take Canada in directions not conducive to future economic growth or to furthering trade agreements with the U.S.

Canadians need to carefully consider whether or not Canada can endure, or afford, Carney’s costly climate vision that risks another “lost Liberal decade” of economic stagnation?


Tammy Nemeth is a U.K.-based strategic energy analyst.

Ron Wallace is an executive fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and the Canada West Foundation.

Continue Reading

Carbon Tax

Trump targets Washington’s climate laws in recent executive order

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday targeting state-level climate policies – including Washington state’s Climate Commitment Act – calling them unconstitutional and harmful to domestic energy production

The executive order directs attorneys general to take action against state laws and policies that address climate change or involve environmental justice, carbon or greenhouse gas emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.

That includes Washington’s CCA that requires emitters to either reduce their carbon footprint or purchase “allowances” via a cap-and-trade program, which sets a limit on emissions from the state’s largest polluters: oil refineries, utilities, and manufacturers.

The CCA’s cap lowers over time with the goal of getting to carbon neutrality by 2050. While the program has generated billions in revenue, only 11% directly funds emissions-reducing projects, with the rest supports climate resilience, public health programs, and infrastructure planning, as previously reported by The Center Square,

According to a press release from The White House, the executive order targets these state laws and policies because they “burden the use of domestic energy resources and that are unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.”

Gov. Bob Ferguson does not believe the executive order has enough teeth to impact the state’s CCA.

“Voters upheld the Climate Commitment Act by a landslide, with 61% approval,” Ferguson told The Center Square in an email. “I am confident we will be able to preserve this and other important laws protecting our climate and investments in clean energy from this latest attack by the Trump administration.”

The Washington Department of Transportation told The Center Square it is working with federal and state partners to seek clarification about the implications and next steps of federal funding actions.

The Department of Ecology did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment.

If U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi does go after the CCA and other environmental policies, Washington officials may argue that it’s within the state’s authority to regulate emissions for public health.

For example, The federal Clean Air Act allows states, including Washington, to adopt more stringent motor vehicle emission standards than the federal minimums in certain circumstances.

The 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed states’ standing to sue over carbon emissions, ruling that greenhouse gases endanger public health and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

This wouldn’t be the first time the state defended its environmental laws against federal challenges from the Trump administration.

Washington also fought emissions rollbacks during the first Trump administration when Ferguson was state attorney general.

One key victory came in 2024, when Washington helped defend California’s right to set stricter vehicle emission standards.

While Ferguson has not commented on the executive order, New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham – co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance – issued a joint statement on Tuesday that states that the federal government cannot “unilaterally strip states’ independent constitutional authority.”

“We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans’ fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer,” the statement said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X