Canadian Energy Centre
Canada should ‘shout from the rooftops’ its ability to reduce emissions with LNG
Morning view of a coal-fired power station in China. Getty Images photo
From the Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.
By James Snell and Deborah Jaremko
Canada should work with its allies and potential customers to receive credit for the global emissions reduction benefits of exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG), says a prominent Canadian energy advocate.
The equivalent of all Canadian GHG emissions could be eliminated by helping Asia switch 20 per cent of its coal fired power stations to natural gas, says Shannon Joseph, chair of Energy for a Secure Future, citing a recent report published by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
“Canada could help deliver 680 megatonnes of emissions reductions, and that’s more than our whole country,” she says.
“We should do it and shout it from the rooftops. We should move forward with LNG as an energy and emission solution.”
Receiving credit for lowering emissions with LNG could come through what’s known as Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, but Joseph says Canada need not wait for these carbon accounting rules to be settled before pressing forward.
“We need to assert, confidently, the environmental value we would be delivering to the world,” she says.
Shannon Joseph, chair of Energy for a Secure Future. Photo by Dave Chidley for the Canadian Energy Centre
Article 6 conceptually allows countries to collaborate with each other on emissions reduction goals by trading carbon credits. In theory, for example that could allow Canada receive credit for emissions reductions achieved in China by using Canadian LNG to displace coal.
The Paris Agreement signatories have not yet agreed on the rules to make Article 6 a reality. Meanwhile, driven by Asia, last year the world consumed more coal – and produced more emissions from that coal – than ever before, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The IEA says switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation reduces emissions by half on average. LNG from Canada can deliver an even bigger decrease, reducing emissions by up to 62 per cent, according to a June 2020 study published in the Journal for Cleaner Production.
Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, world LNG demand was expected to nearly double by 2040. The market has become even tighter as countries work to exclude Russian energy, says a report by Energy for a Secure Future.
Japan and South Korea, as well as Germany have asked Canada to step up LNG development to help mitigate the energy crisis.
With or without Article 6, Energy for a Secure Future is calling on Canada to work with its potential customers in Europe and Asia to recognize and credit the environmental benefits of Canadian LNG displacing higher emitting energy.
“Canada’s allies have come here asking for energy, and we should work directly with them to find a way to have our environmental contributions recognized,” says Joseph, adding the U.S. has moved ahead without credits, more than doubling LNG exports since 2019.
Canada has yet to export significant volumes of LNG after years of regulatory delay and cancelled projects – but things are changing.
LNG Canada in Kitimat B.C. will be the first major export facility to operate, starting in 2025. Woodfibre LNG near Squamish begins construction this fall with the aim to start operating in 2027. Other proposed projects include the Indigenous-led Cedar LNG facility in Kitimat and Ksi Lisims LNG near Prince Rupert.
LNG Canada CEO Jason Klein stands atop a receiving platform overlooking LNG processing units called trains that are used to convert natural gas into liquefied natural gas at the LNG Canada export terminal under construction, in Kitimat, B.C., on Wednesday, September 28, 2022. CP Images photo
Meanwhile, India, China and Japan remain consumers of Russian oil and gas, according to the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy.
“We are trying to help our allies meet the challenges they are facing. One of these is ensuring that their populations – sometimes of over a billion people – can even access modern forms of energy,” Joseph says.
“If Canada wants to be relevant and to lead, we have to come to the table with solutions to this question, alongside the environmental one. LNG is our biggest card.”
India will have the world’s largest population by 2028 – climbing to 1.45 billion and rising to 1.67 billion people by 2040, according to the United Nations Population Fund.
“Currently India is the fourth largest importer of LNG [in the world] and demand is expected to grow massively as 270 million people move up the socioeconomic ladder,” says Victor Thomas, CEO of the Canada-India Business Council.
Canada’s potential to deliver LNG to India “just makes good sense when you look at the geopolitical fractures that have occurred since 2022,” he says, noting the U.S. has recognized the opportunity and is taking action to form new business relationships in India.
Burning wood and other biomass for heat and cooking is still common in the South Asian country, while coal produces around three quarters of India’s electricity. According to the IEA, by 2040 India’s total energy demand will be 70 per cent higher than it was in 2019.
“Transitioning from wood burning to LNG is a massive emissions reduction,” says Thomas. “It’s a safe and reliable opportunity. People are looking for a country like Canada to be able to provide that.”
Alberta
REPORT: Alberta municipalities hit with $37 million carbon tax tab in 2023
Grande Prairie. Getty Images photo
From the Canadian Energy Centre
Federal cash grab driving costs for local governments, driving up property taxes
New data shows the painful economic impact of the federal carbon tax on municipalities.
Municipalities in Alberta paid out more than $37 million in federal carbon taxes in 2023, based on a recent survey commissioned by Alberta Municipal Affairs, with data provided to the Canadian Energy Centre.
About $760,000 of that came from the City of Grande Prairie. In a statement, Mayor Jackie Clayton said “if the carbon tax were removed, City property taxes could be reduced by 0.6 per cent, providing direct financial relief to residents and businesses in Grande Prairie.”
Conducted in October, the survey asked municipal districts, towns and cities in Alberta to disclose the amount of carbon tax paid out for the heating and electrifying of municipal assets and fuel for fleet vehicles.
With these funds, Alberta municipalities could have hired 7,789 high school students at $15 per hour last year with the amount paid to Ottawa.
The cost on municipalities includes:
Lloydminster: $422,248
Calgary: $1,230,300 (estimate)
Medicine Hat: $876,237
Lethbridge: $1,398,000 (estimate)
Grande Prairie: $757,562
Crowsnest Pass: $71,100
Red Deer: $1,495,945
Bonnyville: $19,484
Hinton: $66,829
Several municipalities also noted substantial indirect costs from the carbon tax, including higher rates from vendors that serve the municipality – like gravel truck drivers and road repair providers – passing increased fuel prices onto local governments.
The rising price for materials and goods like traffic lights, steel, lumber and cement, due to higher transportation costs are also hitting the bottom line for local governments.
The City of Grande Prairie paid out $89 million in goods and services in 2023, and the indirect costs of the carbon tax “have had an inflationary impact on those expenses” in addition to the direct costs of the tax.
In her press conference announcing Alberta’s challenge to the federal carbon tax on Oct. 29, 2024, Premier Danielle Smith addressed the pressures the carbon tax places on municipal bottom lines.
“In 2023 alone, the City of Calgary could have hired an additional 112 police officers or firefighters for the amount they sent to Ottawa for the carbon tax,” she said.
In a statement issued on Oct. 7, 2024, Ontario Conservative MP Ryan Williams, shadow minister for international trade, said this issue is nationwide.
“In Belleville, Ontario, the impact of the carbon tax is particularly notable. The city faces an extra $410,000 annually in costs – a burden that directly translates to an increase of 0.37 per cent on residents’ property tax bills.”
There is no rebate yet provided on retail carbon pricing for towns, cities and counties.
In October, the council in Belleville passed a motion asking the federal government to return in full all carbon taxes paid by municipalities in Canada.
The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.
Canadian Energy Centre
Ignoring the global picture and making Canadians poorer: Energy and economic leaders on Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap
From the Canadian Energy Centre
The federal government’s draft rules to cap emissions – and by credible analysis, production – from Canada’s oil and gas sector will make Canadians poorer, won’t reduce world emissions, and are a “slap in the face” to Indigenous communities.
That’s the view of several leaders in energy and the economy calling out the negative consequences of Ottawa’s new regulations, which were announced on November 4.
Here’s a selection of what they have to say.
Goldy Hyder, CEO, Business Council of Canada
“At a time when Canada’s economy is stalling, imposing an oil and gas emissions cap will only make Canadians poorer. Strong climate action requires a strong economy. This cap will leave us with neither.”
Deborah Yedlin, CEO, Calgary Chamber of Commerce
“Canada would stand as the only country in the world to move forward with a self-imposed emissions cap.
“Given that our economic growth numbers have been underwhelming–and our per-person productivity lags that of the United States by $20,000, one would expect the government to be more focused on supporting sectors that are critical to economic growth rather than passing legislation that will compromise investment and hamper our growth prospects.
“…If the Canadian government wants to reduce emissions, it should follow the private sector’s lead – and strong track record – and withdraw the emissions cap.”
Stephen Buffalo, CEO, Indian Resources Council of Canada
“Over the past four decades, Canadian governments urged and promoted Indigenous peoples to engage in the natural resource economy. We were anxious to break our dependence on government and, even more, to exercise our treaty and Indigenous rights to build our own economies. We jumped in with far more enthusiasm and commitment than most Canadians appreciate.
“And now, in a bid to make Canada look ecologically virtuous on the world stage, the Liberal government imposed further restrictions on the oil and gas sector. This is happening as Indigenous engagement, employment and equity investment are growing and at a time when our communities have had their first taste of real and sustainable prosperity since the newcomers killed off all the buffalo. Thanks for nothing.”
Trevor Tombe, professor of economics, University of Calgary School of Public Policy
“[The emissions cap] is a wedge issue that’s going to be especially popular in Quebec. And I don’t think the [federal government’s] thinking goes much further than that.”
Kendall Dilling, president, Pathways Alliance
“A decrease in Canadian production has no impact on global demand – meaning another country’s oil will simply fill the void and the intended impact of the emissions cap is negated at a global level.
“An emissions cap gives industry less – not more – of the certainty needed to make long-term investments that create jobs, economic growth and tax revenues for all levels of government. It simply makes Canada less competitive.”
Michael Belenkie, CEO, Advantage Energy
“Canada’s emissions profile is not unusual. What’s unusual about Canada and our emissions is we seem to be the only exporting nation of the world that is willing to self-immolate. All we’re doing is we’re shutting ourselves down at our own expense and watching global emissions increase.”
Kevin Krausert, CEO and co-founder, Avatar Innovations
“The emissions cap risks delaying – if not derailing – a whole suite of emissions-reduction technology projects. The reason is simple: it has added yet another layer of uncertainty and complexity on already skinny investment decisions by weakening the most effective mechanism Canada has in place.
“…After nearly 15 years of experimenting in a complicated regulatory system, we’ve finally landed on one of the most globally effective and fungible carbon markets in the world in Alberta, called TIER.
“What the federal emissions cap has done is introduce uncertainty about the future of TIER. That’s because the cap has its own newly created cap-and-trade system. It takes TIER’s 15 years of experience and market knowledge and either duplicates functioning markets or creates a whole new market that may take another 15 years to get right.”
Dennis Darby, CEO, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
“The federal government’s announcement of a cap and trade on oil and gas emissions threatens Canada’s energy trade, economic interests, and national unity.”
Adam Legge, president, Business Council of Alberta
“The oil and gas emissions cap is a discriminatory and divisive policy proposal—the epitome of bad public policy. It will likely cap Canadian prosperity—billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs lost for no benefit, and the burden will be borne largely in one region and one sector.”
Lisa Baiton, CEO, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
“The result would be lower production, lower exports, fewer jobs, lower GDP and lower revenues to governments to fund critical infrastructure and social programs on which Canadians rely.”
Statement, Canadian Association of Energy Contractors
“The Trudeau government does not care about Canadian blue-collar, middle-class energy workers who rely on the industry to support their families. It does not care about small, medium and Indigenous energy service businesses that operate in rural and remote communities across Western Canada. And it certainly does not care about supporting our allies who are desperate for oil and gas from sources other than regimes such as Russia or Iran.”
Peter Tertzakian, executive director, ARC Energy Research Institute
“Focusing on a single sector while ignoring others is problematic because each tonne of emissions has the same impact on climate change, regardless of its source. It makes little sense to impose potentially higher economic burdens on one economic sector when you could reduce emissions elsewhere at a lower cost.”
Shannon Joseph, chair, Energy for a Secure Future
“Canada continues to pursue its climate policy in a vacuum, ignoring the big picture of global emissions. This places at risk our international interests, tens of thousands of good paying jobs and important progress on reconciliation.”
Adam Sweet, director for Western Canada, Clean Prosperity
“Layering on a new cap-and-trade system for oil and gas producers adds uncertainty and regulatory complexity that risks undermining investment in emissions reductions just as we’re getting close to landing significant new decarbonization projects here in Alberta.”
-
conflict2 days ago
Colonel Macgregor warns of world war, urges Trump to ‘tell the truth’ about Ukraine, Israel
-
Business1 day ago
Taxpayer watchdog calls Trudeau ‘out of touch’ for prioritizing ‘climate change’ while families struggle
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Chinese Agents Can Now Access Every American’s Phone Calls And Texts, GOP Senator Warns
-
conflict1 day ago
The West Is Playing With Fire In Ukraine
-
Environment1 day ago
Climate Scientists declare the climate “emergency” is at an end
-
conflict2 days ago
Russia has sent the West a message: Don’t provoke us into escalating the war
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Tucker Carlson: Longtime source says porn sites controlled by intelligence agencies for blackmail
-
illegal immigration2 days ago
Texas offers land for use for Trump deportations