Energy
Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale
From the Fraser Institute
By Jock Finlayson and Elmira Aliakbari
Forcing down Canadian oil and gas emissions within a short time span (five to seven years) is sure to exact a heavy economic price, especially when Canada is projected to experience a long period of weak growth in inflation-adjusted incomes and GDP per person.
After two years of deliberations, the Trudeau government (specifically, the Environment and Climate Change Canada department) has unveiled the final version of Ottawa’s plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from the oil and gas sector.
The draft regulations, which still must pass the House and Senate to become law, stipulate that oil and gas producers must reduce emissions by 35 per cent from 2019 levels by between 2030 and 2032. They also would establish a “cap and trade” regulatory regime for the sector. Under this system, each oil and gas facility is allocated a set number of allowances, with each allowance permitting a specific amount of annual carbon emissions. These allowances will decrease over time in line with the government’s emission targets.
If oil and gas producers exceed their allowances, they can purchase additional ones from other companies with allowances to spare. Alternatively, they could contribute to a “decarbonization” fund or, in certain cases, use “offset credits” to cover a small portion of their emissions. While cutting production is not required, lower oil and gas production volumes will be an indirect outcome if the cost of purchasing allowances or other compliance options becomes too high, making it more economical for companies to reduce production to stay within their emissions limits.
The oil and gas industry accounts for almost 31 per cent of Canada’s GHG emissions, while transportation and buildings contribute 22 and 13 per cent, respectively. However, the proposed cap applies exclusively to the oil and gas sector, exempting the remaining 69 per cent of the country’s GHG emissions. Targeting a single industry in this way is at odds with the policy approach recommended by economists including those who favour strong action to address climate change.
The oil and gas cap also undermines the Trudeau government’s repeated claims that carbon-pricing is the main lever policymakers are using to reduce GHG emissions. In its 2023 budget (page 71), the government said “Canada has taken a market-driven approach to emissions reduction. Our world-leading carbon pollution pricing system… is highly effective because it provides a clear economic signal to businesses and allows them the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way to lower their emissions.”
This assertion is vitiated by the expanding array of other measures Ottawa has adopted to reduce emissions—hefty incentives and subsidies, product standards, new regulations and mandates, toughened energy efficiency requirements, and (in the case of oil and gas) limits on emissions. Most of these non-market measures come with a significantly higher “marginal abatement cost”—that is, the additional cost to the economy of reducing emissions by one tonne—compared to the carbon price legislated by the Trudeau government.
And there are other serious problems with the proposed oil and gas emissions gap. For one, emissions have the same impact on the climate regardless of the source; there’s no compelling reason to target a single sector. As a group of Canadian economists wrote back in 2023, climate policies targeting specific industries (or regions) are likely to reduce emissions at a much higher overall cost per tonne of avoided emissions.
Second, forcing down Canadian oil and gas emissions within a short time span (five to seven years) is sure to exact a heavy economic price, especially when Canada is projected to experience a long period of weak growth in inflation-adjusted incomes and GDP per person, according to the OECD and other forecasting agencies. The cap stacks an extra regulatory cost on top of the existing carbon price charged to oil and gas producers. The cap also promises to foster complicated interactions with provincial regulatory and carbon-pricing regimes that apply to the oil and gas sector, notably Alberta’s industrial carbon-pricing system.
The Conference Board of Canada think-tank, the consulting firm Deloitte, and a study published by our organization (the Fraser Institute) have estimated the aggregate cost of the federal government’s emissions cap. All these projections reasonably assume that Canadian oil and gas producers will scale back production to meet the cap. Such production cuts will translate into many tens of billions of lost economic output, fewer high-paying jobs across the energy supply chain and in the broader Canadian economy, and a significant drop in government revenues.
Finally, it’s striking that the Trudeau government’s oil and gas emissions cap takes direct aim at what ranks as Canada’s number one export industry, which provides up to one-quarter of the country’s total exports. We can’t think of another advanced economy that has taken such a punitive stance toward its leading export sector.
In short, the Trudeau government’s proposed cap on GHG emissions from the oil and gas industry lacks any solid scientific, economic or policy rationale. And it will add yet more costs and complexity to Canada’s already shambolic, high-cost and ever-growing suite of climate policies. The cap should be scrapped, forthwith.
Authors:
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
-
Business8 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
-
Alberta9 hours ago
Before Trudeau Blames Alberta, Perhaps He Should Look in the Mirror
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Cure for Vaccine Skepticism
-
DEI1 day ago
Biden FBI shut down diversity office before Trump administration could review it
-
Business2 days ago
Trump’s oil tariffs could spell deficits for Alberta government
-
International1 day ago
Trump announces inauguration will take place indoors, citing cold weather