Energy
Federal Greenwash law: guilty until proven innocent
From Resource Works
“Under this new law, you’re guilty unless you prove your innocence to some back-room bureaucratic body. That’s simply not a Canadian concept.”
In its latest display of environmental correctness, the federal government passed a new anti-greenwashing law that requires individuals or organizations making claims or promises about the climate benefits of products or processes to prove their truth.
Such “truth,” the law stipulates, must be proven to the satisfaction of a federal bureaucracy — by way of “an adequate and proper test” or “adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology.”
However, those tests and methodologies have not been defined or announced, remaining hopelessly vague. A federal bureaucrat is now empowered under the law to review such climate statements and claims, and to compel court proceedings if they deem them not to meet the ambiguous criteria.
It’s clear the law (Bill C-59, amendments to the Competition Act) would apply to companies claiming, for example, that their production processes or new technologies will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Competition Bureau conveniently will not have to prove that the claims are false or misleading. The new law instead requires the accused company or agency to prove their innocence.
The penalties can be severe, with fines of up to $10 million ($15 million for repeat offenders) or as much as three times the benefit derived from the misrepresentation. If that benefit cannot be reasonably determined, the penalty could be up to three percent of the company’s annual worldwide gross revenues.
Canada is thus following the green correctness of the European Parliament, which now requires “proof” of claims of a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment when a producer reduces or offsets emissions.
The European Union’s move followed a study by the European Commission, which found more than half of green claims were vague, misleading, or unfounded, with 40% being “completely unsubstantiated.”
Industry in Canada has been quick to protest Bill C-59, and it’s not just the oil and natural gas sector raising concerns. Industries ranging from automotive to mining to manufacturing are also challenging the new law.
Dennis Darby, CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters Association, called the changes “quite heavy-handed” and said his member companies worry about potential legal challenges over any environmental claims they make about emissions-reducing technologies.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) also protested: “These amendments effectively silence discussion around climate and environmental policy for political gains, while promoting the voices of those most opposed to Canada’s oil and natural gas sector.
“The federal government’s approach to these amendments has introduced a new level of complexity and risk for those looking to invest in Canada. The amendments to the Competition Act will make it more difficult for proponents to speak to Canadians and gain public support for their projects, particularly for those focused on reducing emissions.”
CAPP argued in a submission to the Competition Bureau: “The effect of this legislation is to silence the energy industry and those that support it, in an effort to clear the field of debate and promote the voices of those most opposed to Canada’s energy industry.
“Implementing a vague law with exceptionally high penalties, without consultation, and with an outsized impact on the country’s largest industries, is both anti-democratic and anti-business.”
Will the new Canadian law also apply (as CAPP says it should) to climate campaigners and green groups who claim that a company, product, or process damages the global climate?
One green group recently attacked liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments in British Columbia using (among other things) a photoshopped image of a smoke-emitting oil and gas facility in Iran. Could that be prosecuted under the new law? It should be, but who knows?
Will the new reverse-onus law apply in practice to government departments, ministries, and ministers? Again, who knows?
The federal Canada Energy Regulator, for example, made a number of green statements in a recent Market Snapshot about LNG in BC:
- “LNG Canada is actively working on electrifying certain processes, especially for the proposed Phase 2. This shift will reduce reliance on fossil fuels and help lower the carbon intensity of LNG production.”
- “Woodfibre LNG will use electric motors powered by renewable electricity from B.C. Hydro, making the project one of the lowest-emission LNG export facilities in the world.”
- “The proposed Cedar LNG facility will also be powered by renewable electricity from B.C. Hydro and will be one of the lowest-emission LNG facilities in the world.”
- “The proposed Ksi Lisims LNG facility would have one of the lowest carbon intensities of large-scale LNG export projects in the world, utilizing several technologies to reduce carbon emissions, including renewable hydropower from the B.C. electricity grid.”
- “The Tilbury LNG facility is powered by renewable hydroelectricity, which means it can produce LNG that is nearly 30 percent less carbon-intensive than the global average.”
Does the Canada Energy Regulator now have to “prove” all those statements?
And what about Prime Minister Trudeau himself? The First Nations LNG Alliance (which has said the law could be used as one more tool to discourage Indigenous partnerships and investment in energy projects) asked if the law would apply to the prime minister.
“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hailed the go-ahead decision by the Cedar LNG project, majority-owned by the Haisla First Nation in B.C. He said it will be ‘the world’s lowest carbon footprint LNG facility.’ So does the prime minister now have to ‘prove’ that Cedar LNG is the world’s lowest carbon footprint LNG facility?”
Regardless, under this new law, you’re guilty unless you prove your innocence to some back-room bureaucratic body. That’s simply not a Canadian concept, nor a Liberal one. This new law needs to be changed or repealed.
Business
Biden announces massive new climate goals in final weeks, despite looming Trump takeover
From LifeSiteNews
Outgoing President Joe Biden announced a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions from 61-66% over the next decade, even though President Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.
Outgoing President Joe Biden announced December 19 a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions of more than 60% over the next decade, even though returning President Donald Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.
“Today, as the United States continues to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, President Biden is announcing a new climate target for the United States: a 61-66 percent reduction in 2035 from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas emissions,” the White House announced, the Washington Free Beacon reports. The new target will be formally submitted to the United Nations Climate Change secretariat.
“President Biden’s new 2035 climate goal is both a reflection of what we’ve already accomplished,” Biden climate adviser John Podesta added, “and what we believe the United States can and should achieve in the future.”
The announcement may be little more than a symbolic gesture in the end, however, as Trump is widely expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement upon resuming office in January, in the process voiding related climate obligations.
Trump formally pulled out of the Paris accords in August 2017, the first year of his first term, with then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stating that the administration would be “open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its business, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.”
Such terms were never reached, however, leaving America out until Biden re-committed the nation to the Paris Agreement on the first day of his presidency, obligating U.S. policy to new economic regulations to cut carbon emissions.
In June, the Trump campaign confirmed Trump’s intentions to withdraw from Paris again. At the time, Trump’s team was reportedly mulling a number of non-finalized drafts of executive orders to do so.
Left-wing consternation on the matter is based on certitude in “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) or “climate change,” the thesis that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, is primarily responsible for Earth’s changing climate and that such trends pose a danger to the planet in the form of rising sea levels and weather instability.
Activists have long claimed there is a “97 percent scientific consensus” in favor of AGW, but that number comes from a distortion of an overview of 11,944 papers from peer-reviewed journals, 66.4 percent of which expressed no opinion on the question; in fact, many of the authors identified with the AGW “consensus” later spoke out to say their positions had been misrepresented.
AGW proponents suffered a blow in 2010 with the discovery that their leading researchers at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had engaged in widespread data manipulation, flawed climate models, misrepresentation of sources, and suppression of dissenting findings in order to make the so-called “settled science” say what climate activists wanted it to.
Business
Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks
From The Center Square
Under Texas law, financial institutions that boycott the oil and natural gas industry are prohibited from entering into contracts with state governmental entities. State law also requires state entities to divest from financial companies that boycott the oil and natural gas industry by implementing ESG policies.
Not soon after the general election, and within two weeks of each other, two major financial institutions have left a United Nations Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA).
This is after they joined three years ago, pledging to require environmental social governance standards (ESG) across their platforms, products and systems.
According to the “bank-led and UN-convened” NZBA, global banks joined the alliance, pledging to align their lending, investment, and capital markets activities with a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, NZBA explains.
Since April 2021, 145 banks in 44 countries with more than $73 trillion in assets have joined NZBA, tripling membership in three years.
“In April 2021 when NZBA launched, no bank had set a science-based sectoral 2030 target for its financed emissions using 1.5°C scenarios,” it says. “Today, over half of NZBA banks have set such targets.”
There are two less on the list.
Goldman Sachs was the first to withdraw from the alliance this month, ESG Today reported. Wells Fargo was the second, announcing its departure Friday.
The banks withdrew two years after 19 state attorneys general launched an investigation into them and four other institutions, Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, for alleged deceptive trade practices connected to ESG.
Four states led the investigation: Arizona, Kentucky, Missouri and Texas. Others involved include Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia. Five state investigations aren’t public for confidentiality reasons.
The investigation was the third launched by Texas AG Ken Paxton into deceptive trade practices connected to ESG, which he argues were designed to negatively impact the Texas oil and natural gas industry. The industry is the lifeblood of the Texas economy and major economic engine for the country and world, The Center Square has reported.
The Texas oil and natural gas industry accounts for nearly one-third of Texas’s GDP and funds more than 10% of the state’s budget.
It generates over 43% of the electricity in the U.S. and 51% in Texas, according to 2023 data from the Energy Information Administration.
It continues to break production records, emissions reduction records and job creation records, leading the nation in all three categories, The Center Square reported. Last year, the industry paid the largest amount in tax revenue in state history of more than $26.3 billion. This translated to $72 million a day to fund public schools, universities, roads, first responders and other services.
“The radical climate change movement has been waging an all-out war against American energy for years, and the last thing Americans need right now are corporate activists helping the left bankrupt our fossil fuel industry,” Paxton said in 2022 when launching Texas’ investigation. “If the largest banks in the world think they can get away with lying to consumers or taking any other illegal action designed to target a vital American industry like energy, they’re dead wrong. This investigation is just getting started, and we won’t stop until we get to the truth.”‘
Paxton praised Wells Fargo’s move to withdraw from “an anti-energy activist organization that requires its members to prioritize a radical climate agenda over consumer and investor interests.”
Under Texas law, financial institutions that boycott the oil and natural gas industry are prohibited from entering into contracts with state governmental entities. State law also requires state entities to divest from financial companies that boycott the oil and natural gas industry by implementing ESG policies. To date, 17 companies and 353 publicly traded investment funds are on Texas’ ESG divestment list.
After financial institutions withdraw from the NZBA, they are permitted to do business with Texas, Paxton said. He also urged other financial institutions to follow suit and “end ESG policies that are hostile to our critical oil and gas industries.”
Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar has expressed skepticism about companies claiming to withdraw from ESG commitments noting there is often doublespeak in their announcements, The Center Square reported.
Notably, when leaving the alliance, a Goldman Sachs spokesperson said the company was still committed to the NZBA goals and has “the capabilities to achieve our goals and to support the sustainability objectives of our clients,” ESG Today reported. The company also said it was “very focused on the increasingly elevated sustainability standards and reporting requirements imposed by regulators around the world.”
“Goldman Sachs also confirmed that its goal to align its financing activities with net zero by 2050, and its interim sector-specific targets remained in place,” ESG Today reported.
Five Goldman Sachs funds are listed in Texas’ ESG divestment list.
The Comptroller’s office remains committed to “enforcing the laws of our state as passed by the Texas Legislature,” Hegar said. “Texas tax dollars should not be invested in a manner that undermines our state’s economy or threatens key Texas industries and jobs.”
-
armed forces2 days ago
Canadian military deployed ‘gender advisors’ to Ukraine, Haiti at taxpayers’ expense
-
Business2 days ago
Taxpayers release Naughty and Nice List
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
How The NFL Grinch Bought Xmas: Drowning In A Sea of Football
-
Health2 days ago
Dr. Malone: Bird flu ‘emergency’ in California is a case of psychological bioterrorism
-
Business2 days ago
Rand Paul Releases Report Detailing $1,000,000,000,000 In Gov’t Waste. Here Are The Worst Offenders
-
Opinion2 days ago
How Christianity Remade the World