Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Canadian MPs pass motion demanding Trudeau hold ‘carbon tax emergency meeting’ with all premiers

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By  Clare Marie Merkowsky

The prime minister has five weeks to call a publicly televised meeting with Canada’s 14 premiers to discuss the carbon tax.

A Conservative, non-binding motion demanding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meet publicly with Canada’s 14 premiers about the carbon tax passed in the House of Commons on April 10.

“That the House declare that the Prime Minister convene a carbon tax emergency meeting with all of Canada’s 14 first ministers,” the text of the motion reads.

According to the motion, titled “Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting,” the meeting will address:”(a) the ongoing carbon tax crisis and the financial burden it places on Canadians (b) the Prime Minister’s recent 23% carbon tax increase (c) plans for provinces to opt-out of the federal carbon tax to pursue other responsible ideas to lower emissions, given that under the government’s current environmental plan.”

The motion mandates that the meeting is publicly televised and held within five weeks of the motion being passed.

Surprisingly, New Democratic Party (NDP) and Bloc Quebecois Members of Parliament (MPs) broke from their usual coalition with the Liberal Party and voted alongside Conservatives in favor of the motion. The motion was passed with 172 votes in favor compared with 150 against.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre celebrated the decision on X, formerly known as Twitter, writing, “Common sense Conservative motion on Trudeau convening a televised carbon tax meeting with Canada’s premiers PASSED.”

“Trudeau must listen to Canadians on the financial pain his carbon tax is causing,” he declared.

 

The demand to meet with Canada’s premiers to discuss the tax comes as Trudeau recently refused invitations from Premiers Scott Moe of Saskatchewan, Danielle Smith of Alberta, Doug Ford of Ontario, Andrew Furey of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Blaine Higgs of New Brunswick to discuss the carbon tax’s detrimental effect on Canadians finances.

Trudeau increased the carbon tax despite seven out of 10 provincial premiers and 70 percent of Canadians pleading with him to halt his plan.

Trudeau’s carbon tax, framed as a way to reduce carbon emissions, has cost Canadian households hundreds of dollars annually despite rebates.

The increased costs are only expected to rise. A recent report revealed that a carbon tax of more than $350 per tonne is needed to reach Trudeau’s net-zero goals by 2050.

Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne, but the Trudeau government has a goal of $170 per tonne by 2030.

However, despite appeals from politicians and Canadians alike, Trudeau remains determined to increase the carbon tax regardless of its effects on citizens’ lives.

The Trudeau government’s current environmental goals – which are in lockstep with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades.

The reduction and eventual elimination of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum, the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.

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

More from this author

Energy

Energy group urges Trump administration to restock oil reserves

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

An energy worker advocacy group is calling on the Trump administration to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve now that oil prices have fallen to four-year lows.

Former President Joe Biden drained the reserve of more than 40% of its capacity when gas prices reached record highs, averaging more than $5 a gallon across the U.S. in June 2022.

With the price of a barrel of crude oil at about $61, Power The Future says it’s the right time to restock the reserve.

“This drop in oil prices is not only potential good news for Americans at the pump, it also provides a window to strengthen our national energy security,” Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of Power The Future, said Monday.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in 1975 after member countries of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries placed an embargo on oil production and distribution, leading to oil shortages and higher costs. The stock pile of oil in the reserve is meant to protect the U.S. from similar supply disruptions.

“Joe Biden left America weaker by not refilling the SPR, but today’s prices provide an opportunity to fix yet another one of his failure,” Turner said. “The SPR can now be refilled while giving taxpayers a break and it can be purchased tariff-free because we’ll use all American-made energy.”

​Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at dmccaleb@thecentersquare.com.

Continue Reading

Business

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Published on

Offshore drilling rig Development Driller III at the Deepwater Horizon site May, 2010. 

From The Center Square

By 

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

A $744 million jury verdict in Louisiana is at the center of a coordinated legal effort to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to ameliorate the erosion of land in Louisiana, offset climate change and more.

Proponents say the payments are overdue, but critics say the lawsuits will hike energy costs for all Americans and are wrongly supplanting the state and federal regulatory framework already in place.

In the Louisiana case in question, Plaquemines Parish sued Chevron alleging that oil exploration off the coast decades ago led to the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

A jury ruled Friday that Chevron must pay $744 million in damages.

The Louisiana case is just one of dozens of environmental cases around the country that could have a dramatic – and costly – impact on American energy consumers.

While each environmental case has its own legal nuances and differing arguments, the lawsuits are usually backed by one of a handful of the same law firms that have partnered with local and state governments. In Louisiana, attorney John Carmouche has led the charge.

“If somebody causes harm, fix it,” Carmouche said to open his arguments.

Environmental arguments of this nature have struggled to succeed in federal courts, but they hope for better luck in state courts, as the Louisiana case was.

Those damages for exploration come as President Donald Trump is urging greater domestic oil production in the U.S. to help lower energy costs for Americans.

Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, told The Center Square that the Louisiana case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Chevron is expected to appeal.

“So the issue at play here is a question about coastal erosion, about legal liability and about the proper role of the courts versus state government or federal government in enforcing regulation and statute,” Erspamer said.

Another question in the case is whether companies can be held accountable for actions they carried out before regulations were passed restricting them.

“There are now well more than 40 different lawsuits targeting over 200 different companies,” Erspamer said.

The funds would purportedly be used for coastal restoration and a kind of environmental credit system, though critics say safeguards are not in place to make sure the money would actually be used as stated.

While coastal erosion cases appear restricted to Louisiana, similar cases have popped up around the U.S. in the last 10 to 15 years.

Following a similar pattern, local and state governments have partnered with law firms to sue oil producers for large sums to help offset what they say are the effects of climate change, as The Center Square previously reported.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, Bucks County sued a handful of energy companies, calling for large abatement payments to offset the effects of climate change.

“There are all kinds of problems with traceability, causation and allocability,” George Mason University Professor Donald Kochan told The Center Square, pointing out the difficulty of proving specific companies are to blame when emissions occur all over the globe, with China emitting far more than the U.S.

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

Those cases are in earlier stages and face more significant legal hurdles because of questions about whether plaintiffs can justify the cases on federal common law because it is difficult to prove than any one individual has been substantively and directly harmed by climate change.

On top of that, plaintiffs must also prove that emissions released by the particular oil companies are responsible for the damage done, which is complicated by the fact that emissions all over the world affect the environment, the majority of which originate outside the U.S.

“It’s not that far afield from the same kinds of lawsuits we’ve seen in California and New York and other places that more are on the emissions and global warming side rather than the sort of dredging and exploration side,” Erspamer said.

But environmental companies argue that oil companies must fork out huge settlements to pay for environmental repairs.

For now, the Louisiana ruling is a shot across the bow in the legal war against energy companies in the U.S.

Whether the appeal is successful or other lawsuits have the same impact remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Trending

X