Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Economy

The Guilbeault – Trudeau Fallout: Canada’s Oil and Gas Emissions Cap is Under Fire from Experts and Business Leaders – Resource Works

Published

1 year ago

12 minute read

Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s environment and climate minister, at the COP28. Photo by AP.

By Resource Works

More News and Views From Resource Works Here

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his eco-extremist Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault are risking hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in Alberta’s and Canada’s economies and core social programs

The federal government’s proposed cap on emissions from oil and gas has now been outlined in a draft.

While Ottawa insists that it is not a cap on the production of oil and gas, experts fail to see how the emissions cap is not also a de facto production cap, given the details of the policy.

The industry fears that, in effect, that is just what it is — with negative impacts on western provinces that produce oil and gas for domestic use and for export.

The federal government proposes to limit emissions for oil and gas at 35% to 38% below the 2019 level. At the same time, Ottawa says the new rules would allow production to increase 12% above 2019 levels.

The producers are trying to figure out the ups and downs of the policy, and there is a lot to unpack. The federal draft “framework”  is open for discussion and consultation until February 2024.

The initial reaction from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was that the emissions cap could result in “significant” production cuts, and it called the government’s emissions framework unnecessary. Alberta’s oil and gas sector has been invested in decarbonization efforts and measures to reduce methane emissions, already beating a target of a 45% reduction by 2025.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith furiously flamed that “This announced de facto production cap on Alberta’s oil and gas sector amounts to an intentional attack by the federal government on the economy of Alberta and the financial well-being of millions of Albertans and Canadians. . . .

“With their pronouncement singling out the oil and gas sector alone for punitive federal treatment, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his eco-extremist Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault are risking hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in Alberta’s and Canada’s economies and core social programs, are devaluing the retirement investments of millions of Canadians, and are threatening the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Albertans.”

The Business Council of Canada hammered the cap as part of a “full-on charge against the oil and gas sector,” with no other industry so targeted by Ottawa. “It all seems punitive and short-sighted.”

The sectoral specificity is alarmingly pointed.

The Indigenous Resource Network also said it was disappointed by the emissions-cap announcement — and will seek an Indigenous exemption from the cap for Indigenous communities engaged in the oil and gas sector.

And Karen Ogen, CEO of the First Nations LNG Alliance, said from the COP28 climate conference in Dubai that the federal announcement is “disheartening” because of what resource projects mean to Indigenous people. “We’re being shoved aside again.”

The emissions cap follows the unravelling of the federal carbon tax. In the fall of 2023, the Federal Government made a number of exemptions and incentives, including removing the carbon tax from home heating in Atlantic Canada only. As Premiers in the rest of Canada voice their frustration, Saskatchewan even declared it will no longer collect the federal carbon tax at all.

Then the new national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse, said she ‘absolutely’ supports Ontario chiefs in a push for a review of federal carbon-pricing rules. The Ontario chiefs oppose the tax because they say it is not revenue neutral, especially for those on reserves, and because electric vehicles and heat pumps are neither available nor workable in many First Nations communities.

In the face of crumbling support for its policy agenda, Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary saw in the new approach a softening of Ottawa’s enthusiasm for carbon taxes.

“I think it’s pretty clear that government is backing away from the carbon tax as a central pillar of their climate policy. And that means if you want to hit your target, you need to adopt other policies.”

Ergo, production (emissions) caps.

Debate continues over whether Canada is overdoing its climate measures, given that it produces only 1.5% of world emissions. And that Canada is the only top ten world oil producer that proposes such an emissions cap. None of the world’s other major oil producers have an emissions cap.

And then there’s the report from Canada’s independent parliamentary budget officer: “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”

He went on to say: “Consequently, Canada’s primary means of limiting the economic costs of climate change are through participation in a globally coordinated emissions reduction regime.”

LNG, anyone?

Whatever the final version of the regulatory cap looks like, we can expect to lose investment and economic activity, and the producing provinces, companies and their families can expect some pain.

That seems to be a trade-off that, to some extent, the federal government wants to make. But why is it going in this direction?

While some provinces like Quebec or Manitoba have incredible hydroelectric resources, and Ontario is Canada’s nuclear power leader, some provinces, especially in Western Canada, produce and consume oil and natural gas products.

BC produces natural gas in the northeast and is close to exporting LNG overseas. It is already contributing to transporting, refining and exporting oil that is produced elsewhere in the country.

These industries contribute to emissions, they cannot easily be phased out without serious implications for every aspect of how we live our lives. We rely on fossil fuels. So it’s not as simple as saying, “Let’s just get rid of it.”

Policy leaders globally are trying to resolve right now the question of what sacrifices and compromises are we willing to make in order to address climate change in a meaningful way; What is the rate of change and transformation that our economies are willing to accept? And that consumers — and voters — are willing to accept? What can we do without limiting human development in areas of the world where it’s still desperately needed?

We already have Ottawa’s carbon pricing (carbon taxation) scheme. The provinces have been given the opportunity to structure carbon pricing as they see fit, provided that it meets the baseline set by the federal government. Of course, not every province has wanted to do that.

Ottawa is signalling that they don’t think the carbon tax model has been working to meet the emissions (and electoral) targets that they’ve set. So now Ottawa has come up with this emissions backstop, what the feds call a cap-and-trade model for the oil and gas sector.

It’s fair to say that this scheme is a little bit more convoluted. It is going to limit industries. It will add consumer costs. It will cause even more confusion around energy. And we can certainly expect it to be challenged in court.

We’ve recently seen a number of federal environmental policies get kiboshed in courts on constitutional grounds, and criticized by judges across the country. Provincial governments have a tremendous stake in what goes on with natural resource development in their jurisdictions.

We don’t expect this issue of a federal emissions cap will be easily resolved. Look for it to be a very large part of the discussion around the next federal election.

All in all, there’s a lot of concern that, if the scheme is overly convoluted, industries could start to pull back. That could have a large impact on our ability to not only keep our economy strong and serve the interests of Canadians but also on our ability to invest in technologies that actually reduce emissions, like carbon capture or hydrogen.

Our Resource Works CEO, Stewart Muir, recently returned from the COP28 climate conference in Dubai. Among other things, he raised awareness of Canada’s role as a solutions provider to the world, from coal-displacing LNG to BC’s opportunity to become a major hydrogen energy hub.

We’ve made considerable progress in reducing emissions, especially in oil and gas. We have some of the most stringent regulations, not only on carbon and methane, but more broadly on, social and governance dimensions, how you manage local environmental concerns like water and land conservation, and protecting wildlife.

Canada has made huge progress at every level, and the energy sector is building new partnerships with Indigenous communities to ensure that they’re meaningfully included in land and environmental management and also in economic opportunities, including joint or sole ownership of projects.

We are part of addressing climate change and we are part of meeting the world’s energy needs sustainably, responsibly and reliably.

These are conversations that need to continue, and they need to inform our policy agenda as a country.

Related Topics:

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
Bjorn Lomborg / 2 hours ago

Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is crazy high

Media / 2 hours ago

CBC retracts false claims about residential schools after accusing Rebel News of ‘misinformation’

Business / 2 hours ago

‘Great Reset’ champion Klaus Schwab resigns from WEF

Bjorn Lomborg

Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is crazy high

Published on April 22, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Canada has made a legal commitment to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister Trudeau promised that climate action will “create jobs and economic growth” and the federal government insists it will create a “strong economy.” The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.

Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. Annual Canadian CO₂ emissions have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actually increased over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.

Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual CO₂ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One study shows that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.

Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.

In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we would already need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.

The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UN points out that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed to start reducing global carbon emissions, which last year hit a new record.

Data from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.

Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanity hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.

Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More than two billion mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides about 5 per cent of global energy.

Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence has declined only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use some nine centuries from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.

Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.

But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.

We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumers up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

POLL: Canadians want spending cuts

Published on April 22, 2025

By

By Gage Haubrich

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing Canadians want the federal government to cut spending and shrink the size and cost of the bureaucracy.

“The poll shows most Canadians want the federal government to cut spending,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “Canadians know they pay too much tax because the government wastes too much money.”

Between 2019 and 2024, federal government spending increased 26 per cent even after accounting for inflation. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to federal government spending in the next five years. Results of the poll show:

  • 43 per cent say reduce spending
  • 20 per cent say increase spending
  • 16 per cent say maintain spending
  • 20 per cent don’t know

The federal government added 108,000 bureaucrats and increased the cost of the bureaucracy 73 per cent since 2016. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to the size and cost of the federal bureaucracy. Results of the poll show:

  • 53 per cent say reduce
  • 24 per cent say maintain
  • 4 per cent say increase
  • 19 per cent don’t know

Liberal Leader Mark Carney promised to “balance the operating budget in three years.” Leger asked Canadians if they believed Carney’s promise to balance the budget. Results of the poll show:

  • 58 per cent are skeptical
  • 32 per cent are confident
  • 10 per cent don’t know

“Any politician that wants to fix the budget and cut taxes will need to shrink the size and cost of Ottawa’s bloated bureaucracy,” Haubrich said. “The polls show Canadians want to put the federal government on a diet and they won’t trust promises about balancing the budget unless politicians present credible plans.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X