Energy
Canadian policymakers should quickly rethink our energy and climate policies
From the Fraser Institute
In the wee hours of Nov. 6, Donald Trump provided a subtle but clear signal about the direction he will pursue as president regarding climate policies. In his victory speech he gave a nod to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to join forces with MAGA saying, “He wants to do some things, and we’re gonna let him go to it. I just said, but Bobby, leave the oil to me. We have more liquid gold, oil and gas. We have more liquid gold than any country in the world. More than Saudi Arabia. We have more than Russia. Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold.”
People need to understand that Trump 2.0 is a different entity. He did not build his comeback movement by pandering or watering down his priorities. He reached out and either won people over to his side or sent them packing. A major example of this was Elon Musk, who during the first Trump administration resigned from the White House business advisory council to protest Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty. Now Musk is all-in on MAGA and is set to play a lead role in a major downsizing of the administration.
When Trump secured the endorsement of Bobby Kennedy it was based on issues on which they could find agreement, including anti-corruption efforts and addressing the chronic disease burden. But Kennedy had to leave his environmentalism at the door, at least the climate activist part of it.
Trump’s remarks about energy during the campaign were unmistakeable. When he made the quip about wanting to be dictator for a day it was to close the border and “drill drill drill.” When asked how he would reduce the cost of living he said he would rapidly expand energy production with a target of cutting energy costs by at least 50 per cent. And on election night he reiterated: the United States has the oil, the liquid gold, and they’re going to use it.
U.S. climate policy will soon no longer be a thing. The Biden administration chose to focus on extravagant green energy subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act. They were easy to bring in and will be just as easy for Trump to eliminate, especially the ones targeted at Democrat special interest groups. The incoming Trump administration will not settle simply for stalling on new climate action, it’s more likely to try to dismantle the entire climate bureaucracy.
In 2016 Trump did not understand the Washington bureaucracy and its ability to thwart a president’s plans. He learned many hard lessons merely trying to survive lawfare, resistance and open insubordination. It took three years for him to get a few people installed in senior positions in the climate area who could begin to push back against the vast regulatory machinery. But they simply did not have the time nor the capacity to get anything done.
This time should be different. Trump’s team has spent years developing legal and regulatory strategies to bring full executive authority back to the Oval Office so it can execute on plans quickly and efficiently. His top priority is hydrocarbon development and his team is in no mood for compromise. As to the climate issue, Trump recently remarked “Who the hell cares?”
That’s the reality. Now policymakers in Canada must decide what will be appropriate to ask of Canadians in terms of shouldering the costs of climate policies.
There’s one legal issue that Trump has thus far not addressed but that his administration will need to confront if it wants to drill drill drill. There has been an explosion of climate liability lawsuits in U.S. courts, where states, municipalities and activist groups sue major players in the fossil fuel industry demanding massive financial damages for alleged climate harms. There’s even a new branch of climate science called Extreme Event Attribution, which was explicitly developed to promote flimsy and arbitrary statistical analyses that support climate liability cases. Such cases are also popping up in Canada, including the Mathur case in Ontario, which the appellate court recently brought back from defeat.
Both Canada and the U.S. must act at the legislative level to extinguish climate liability in law. There is no good argument for letting this play out in the courts. The cases are prima facie preposterous: the emitters of carbon dioxide are the fuel users, not the producers, so liability—if it exists—should be attached to consumers. But then we would have an unworkable situation where everyone is liable to everyone, each person equally a victim and a tortfeasor. Climate policy belongs in the legislature not the courts and the “climate liability” movement is simply a massive waste of time and resources. It must be stopped.
Canada was already out of step with the U.S. in its mad pursuit of the federal Emission Reduction Plan. While the carbon tax is top of mind for voters, it’s but a small part of a larger and costlier regulatory onslaught, most recently supplemented by a new emissions cap on the western oil and gas sector. With the U.S. poised to sharply change direction, Canada now needs a complete rethink of our own energy and climate policies.
Author:
Daily Caller
Key Trump Cabinet Nominees Face A Daunting Energy Policy Mess
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By David Blackmon
Just so we can frame this for everyone in the room, China will build 100 new coal plants this year. There is not a clean energy race. There is an energy race.
After a week spent watching hours of the various Senate confirmation hearings for some of President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees, one compelling thought lingers with me more than any other: Does Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii have a seat on every Senate committee?
The answer to that is “no,” but it seemed that way as the Senator began her questioning of nominees ranging from Pete Hegseth (Defense) to former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (Justice) to former Republican North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (Interior) to Chris Wright (Energy) by posing some iteration of the following question: “ … since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”
Sadly, Hirono’s farcical style of questioning turned out to be less of an exception than a rule among the Democratic members of these committees as the week wore on. Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia ended his questioning of Hegseth by literally asking if he had ever beaten his wife, an obvious smear which Hegseth denied.
It was all sad to witness, a troubling indicator of the health of both the Democratic Party and the American Republic. But what it all revealed by Friday is that the Democrats are unlikely to claim any scalps from among this week’s slate of nominees. Where energy policy is concerned, that means that the three departments/agencies that are most impactful in that realm are likely to be led by former Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Burgum at the Department of the Interior and Wright at the Department of Energy.
Seldom if ever in this country’s history have three more capable, knowledgeable and effective individuals been in positions of leadership to help reform and recover from the waste and misallocation of taxpayer dollars that have characterized President Joe Biden’s 4-year presidency.
I have written several times here that the inevitable outcome that will result from pretty much every aspect of the Biden Green New Deal policies will be to render America dependent on China for its energy security, due to Chinese dominance of global processing and supply chains for all forms of and raw materials for renewable energy and electric vehicles. This is obviously not a sustainable situation, and it is clear that Trump and his key nominees fully understand that reality.
U.S. dependency on foreign adversaries is not limited to China. One such area involving a different country holds high stakes related to the goal of a renaissance in nuclear power often touted by Republicans and some Democrats alike.
In a revealing exchange, Wright and Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming discussed America’s recent dependence on Russia, of all countries, for imports of enriched uranium. As Wright pointed out, this is a technology first invented in the United States, but our country has virtually no existing capacity for uranium enrichment today. This is, as Wright called it, “a sad state of affairs” that has been caused in large part by wrong-headed federal environmental and permitting policies.
Unfortunately, the Biden cure for this pressing energy security matter could be even worse. As U.S. and NATO sanctions have gradually shut down Russia’s exports of enriched uranium, the U.S. nuclear industry has become reliant on imports from — you guessed it — China.
“As those [sanctions] shut down Russian uranium … we see more imports from China,” Wright testified. “We need to get beyond that … without shutting down the nuclear power plants we have running today. It is an area that requires urgent action.”
In another revealing exchange, Trump’s nominee for Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, disagreed with Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon about the Senator’s claim that the United States is involved in “an arms race on clean energy” with China.
“Senator Wyden, just so we can frame this for everyone in the room, China will build 100 new coal plants this year. There is not a clean energy race. There is an energy race,” Bessent replied. Truer words were never spoken, and it is impossible to win that energy race when the United States is increasingly dependent on China for its very energy needs.
These and other Trump nominees have an enormous mess to clean up from the profligate spending and waste of the Biden years. Fortunately for the country, their work begins Monday. Not a moment too soon.
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
Before Trudeau Blames Alberta, Perhaps He Should Look in the Mirror
From EnergyNow.ca
There has been a lot of talk about how Premier Danielle Smith did not sign a statement of support with the Government of Canada regarding a unified response to any tariff action taken by incoming President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Trudeau singles out Alberta premier for not putting ‘Canada first’ in break with other provinces
Thanks for reading William’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
While it is easy to throw stones at Premier Smith and call her actions one of selfishness, placing the interests of Alberta ahead of Canada, I think there are a number of reasons why one could reply that she was well within her right to act as she did. Over the last decade, Trudeau has gone out of his way to vilify the oil and gas industry, through his continual bad mouthing of the industry as being antiquated, and implementing policies that ensured that capital flight from the space accelerated, infrastructure projects were cancelled and massive levels of uncertainty were overlaid on the investment landscape going forward. Despite all this, the oil and gas sector still remains one of the most important economic contributors to the economy and is the largest component of exports from Canada to the United States, and it isn’t even close.
The Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC)
The ironic thing of all this? To get oil to the refineries in the east, you need to IMPORT it by pipeline from the United States or primarily by ship to Quebec and New Brunswick. Had the Energy East Pipeline been built, Canadian refineries could have had Canadian domiciled product to satiate them. Moreover, had Northern Gateway been built, we would have diversified our client list beyond the United States. Sure, the Trans Mountain Pipeline was built, at extraordinary cost and timelines, and some “credit” is due to the Government getting it done, but the proof is in the current landscape that we operate in.
Now, coming back to the beginning. Why do I think Trudeau should look in the mirror before throwing rocks at Premier Smith? I come back to 2015 when Trudeau said Canada is the world’s “first postnational state” and that “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” He has gone about taking away what many of us grew up with, namely a sense of Canadian identity, and tried to replace that with shame and no collective identity. What is a post nation state you may ask? Post-nationalism or non-nationalism is the process or trend by which nation states and national identities lose their importance relative to cross-nation and self-organized or supranational and global entities as well as local entities.
So, is it any wonder that people are starting to question what is Canadian any more? At a time when Canada is under significant threat, the irony that Alberta likely represents the best tool in this tools (Trudeau) economic toolbox, is wildly ironic. As they say, karma’s a bitch.
Thanks for reading William’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support for his work.
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
‘This Is So Disgusting’: Joe Rogan Unloads On Gavin Newsom For ‘Creepy’ Behavior In Front Of Wildfire Wreckage
-
Business12 hours ago
Trump Talks To China Leader Xi Jinping About Several Topics As President-Elect Readies Himself For White House
-
Business2 days ago
Donald Trump appoints Mel Gibson, Sylvester Stallone as special ambassadors to Hollywood
-
Alberta12 hours ago
Before Trudeau Blames Alberta, Perhaps He Should Look in the Mirror
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Cure for Vaccine Skepticism
-
Brownstone Institute20 hours ago
It’s Time to Retire ‘Misinformation’
-
Daily Caller5 hours ago
Sweeping Deportations to Begin in Chicago Day After Inauguration
-
DEI1 day ago
Biden FBI shut down diversity office before Trump administration could review it