Mark Ruffalo, Hollywood filmmakers wrong about Canadian energy, RBC

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

They say RBC is not a ‘worthy source of financing’ for Canadian film because of its ongoing support for Canadian oil and gas. They are wrong

A group of Hollywood filmmakers including Mark Ruffalo, Joaquin Phoenix and Rachel McAdams is calling on the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) to drop RBC as its main sponsor.

They say RBC is not a “worthy source of financing” for Canadian film because of its ongoing support for Canadian oil and gas. They claim RBC is fueling climate change and disrespecting Indigenous rights.

They are wrong.

RBC is helping fund climate solutions while enabling Indigenous self-determination and prosperity. And Indigenous communities do not want Hollywood to speak for them.

Here are the facts.

Fact: RBC primarily funds Canadian oil and gas, and the world needs more Canadian oil and gas – not less

The world’s growing population needs access to reliable, affordable, responsibly produced energy. And a lot more of it.

According to the United Nations, last November the global population reached 8 billion people, just over a decade after hitting the landmark 7 billion in 2011. Driven by India and China, the world’s population is projected to reach 8.5 billion in 2030 and 9.7 billion 2050.

All those people need energy. Many don’t even have it today, with about 775 million without access to electricity last year, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Even with accelerating investment in low carbon energy resources, the world’s consumption of oil, gas and coal is as high or higher than it has ever been, with both oil and coal demand reaching new records this year, the IEA reports.

The agency projects the world’s total energy consumption – which increased by 15 per cent over the last decade – will increase by a further 24 per cent by 2050.

On the world’s current trajectory, the IEA says oil, gas and coal will account for 62 per cent of world energy supply in 2050, compared to 78 per cent in 2021.

As IEA executive director Fatih Birol said last year, “We will still need oil and gas for years to come… I prefer that oil is produced by countries like Canada who want to reduce the emissions of oil and gas.”

Canada has been a cornerstone of global energy markets and a reliable partner for years, he said.

Fact: Coastal GasLink will help reduce emissions

The Hollywood activists take issue with RBC’s funding of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. This is nonsensical because the project can help reduce emissions in Asia. It also has the support of and is benefiting Indigenous communities.

One of the fastest and most effective ways to reduce emissions is to switch from coal-fired power to power generated from natural gas, traded globally as LNG.

Consider that between 2005 and 2019, emissions from the U.S power sector dropped by 32 per cent because of coal-to-gas switching, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The LNG Canada project – supplied with Canadian natural gas via Coastal GasLink – will have among the world’s lowest emissions intensity, at 0.15 per cent CO2 per tonne compared to the global average of 0.35 per cent CO2 per tonne, according to Oxford Energy Institute.

Natural gas from LNG Canada alone could reduce emissions in Asia by up to 90 million tonnes annually, or the equivalent of shutting down up to 60 Asian coal plants, the project says. That’s also a reduction of more than the entire emissions of the province of British Columbia, which were 64 million tonnes in 2022.

Expanding Canada’s LNG exports to Asia could reduce emissions by 188 million tonnes per year, or the annual equivalent of taking all internal combustion engine vehicles off Canadian roads, according to a 2022 study by Wood Mackenzie.

“It is a disservice to take the choice of Canadian LNG away from those that need it,” Billy Morin, former chief of the Enoch Cree Nation, said earlier this year.

Fact: Coastal GasLink benefits Indigenous communities

The Coastal GasLink pipeline is enabling shared prosperity between Indigenous communities and Canada’s energy industry.

Not only will it connect to the LNG Canada terminal on the traditional lands of the Haisla Nation – where the project has been transformational for the community, according to Chief Councillor Crystal Smith – but it will also provide natural gas for the proposed Cedar LNG project, in which the Haisla Nation is 50 per cent owner.

“Cedar is not only important from a Haisla perspective, [but from] a global perspective,” Smith says.

“Our territory is not in a bubble and protected from what is happening in Asia and India with coal burning.”

Sixteen First Nations will become 10 per cent owners of the Coastal GasLink pipeline itself once it is completed.

And so far, LNG Canada and Coastal GasLink together have spent more than $5.7 billion with Indigenous-owned and local businesses.

“When there is foreign interference, especially from high-profile celebrities like Ruffalo, it sets us back. He does not think beyond the pipeline. He does not think beyond the cause of the day,” Indigenous policy analyst Melissa Mbarki wrote following a previous attack on Coastal GasLink by the actor.

“Over the long term, such actions serve to drive away investment and keep Indigenous communities in poverty. We are dealing with so many social issues, including high rates of suicide, incarceration and homelessness. Speaking on our behalf is not the answer if you fail to acknowledge the entire story.”

Fact: Indigenous communities speak with their own voices

Ruffalo is a prominent activist against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, often spreading misinformation about the project’s relationship with Indigenous communities. But they are fighting back.

“Hollywood celebrities from outside of Canada are actively campaigning against the Coastal GasLink project, claiming Indigenous People do not support it. However, 20 elected First Nations governments along the route do support it,” the Indigenous Resource Network said in a statement last year.

“Hollywood celebrities are standing in the way of us being able to make our own decisions. Their main goal is to push their agenda and use us as talking points; ultimately, communities are left to pick up the pieces.

“Although their intentions may be to help Indigenous people in Canada, this can be best done by allowing our people to use their own voices. We are able to decide for ourselves what is best for ourselves and our communities.”

Fact: The film industry has its own emissions to deal with

Rather than campaign against Canadian energy projects that can help reduce emissions and foster prosperity for Indigenous communities, Hollywood film makers could be better served addressing the emissions in their own backyard.

A 2020 study by the British Film Institute analyzing the emissions associated with producing movies in the U.S. and U.K. found that films with a budget of $70 million or over generate an average 2,840 tonnes of CO2 pollution.

Air travel alone to support a movie production of this scale generates equivalent emissions of flying one way from London to New York 150 times, BFI said.

Related Topics:#AffordableEnergy #CabinetShuffle #CanadianEnergyCentre #CanadianOilAndGas feature

Up Next

Court says “No more pipelines” act unconstitutional – Alberta’s response

Don't Miss

Oil and gas products crucial to farms and food production

Todayville

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

Trump Moves To Reverse Biden’s Green New Deal Agenda — With A Special Focus On Wind

illegal immigration / 4 hours ago

Trump directs feds to target cartels that threaten homeland security

Business / 5 hours ago

Debunking the myth of the ‘new economy’

Daily Caller

Trump Moves To Reverse Biden’s Green New Deal Agenda — With A Special Focus On Wind

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Shares of big Danish offshore wind developer Orsted dropped by 17% Monday, the same day President Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 47^th president of the United States. The two events are not merely coincidental with one another.

To be sure, Orsted’s loss of market cap was caused by several factors, including both the general slowing of the offshore wind business, and Orsted’s own announcement that it will incur a $1.69 billion impairment charge related to its Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York. Company CEO Mads Nipper attributed the charge to delays and cost increases and said the project completion date is now delayed to the second half of 2027.

But there can be little doubt that the raft of energy-related executive orders signed by Trump also contributed to the drop in Orsted’s stock price. As part of a Day 1 agenda consisting of a reported 196 executive orders, the new president took dead aim at reversing the Biden Green New Deal agenda in general, with a special focus on wind power projects on federal lands and waters.

In addition to general orders declaring a national energy emergency and pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords (for a second time), Trump signed a separate order titled, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” That long-winded title (pardon the pun) is quite descriptive of what the order is designed to accomplish.

Section 1 of this order withdraws “from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331.” Somewhat ironically, this is the same OCSLA cited in early January by former President Joe Biden when he set 625 million acres of federal offshore waters off limits to oil and gas leasing and drilling into perpetuity.

As with Biden’s LNG permitting pause, the fourth paragraph of Section 1 in Trump’s order states that “Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas.” However, the same paragraph goes on to subject those existing leases to review by the secretary of the Interior, who is charged with conducting “a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”

Observant readers will know that the parameters of this order as it relates to offshore wind are essentially the same as a proposal I suggested in a previous piece here on Jan. 1. So, obviously, it receives the Blackmon Seal of Approval.

But we should also note that Trump goes even further, extending this freeze to onshore wind projects as well. While the rationale for the freeze in offshore leasing and permitting cites factors unique to the offshore like harm to marine mammals, ocean currents and the marine fishing industry, the rationale supporting the onshore freeze cites “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills and deliver a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, with their findings and recommended authorities to require the removal of such windmills.”

This gets at concerns long held by me and many others that neither the federal government nor any state government has seen fit to require the proper, complete tear down and safe disposal of these massive wind turbines, blades, towers and foundations once they outlive their useful lives. In most jurisdictions, wind operators are free to just abandon the projects and leave the equipment to dilapidate and rot.

The dirty secret of the wind industry, whether onshore or offshore, is that it is not sustainable without consistent new injections of more and more subsidies, along with the tacit refusal by governments to properly regulate its operations. Trump and his team understand this reality and should be applauded for taking real action to address it.

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.

Business

Debunking the myth of the ‘new economy’

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

Where the money comes from isn’t hard to see – if you look at the facts

In British Columbia, the economy is sometimes discussed through the lens of a “new economy” focused on urbanization, high-tech innovation, and creative industries. However, this perspective frequently overlooks the foundational role that the province’s natural resource industries play in generating the income that fuels public services, infrastructure, and daily life.

The Economic Reality

British Columbia’s economy is highly urbanized, with 85% of the population living in urban areas as of the 2021 Census, concentrated primarily in the Lower Mainland and the Capital Regional District.
These metropolitan regions contribute significantly to economic activity, particularly in population-serving sectors like retail, healthcare, and education. However, much of the province’s income—what we call the “first dollar”—originates in the non-metropolitan resource regions.

Natural resources remain the backbone of British Columbia’s economy. Industries such as forestry, mining, energy, and agriculture generate export revenue that flows into the provincial economy, supporting urban and rural communities alike. These sectors are not only vital for direct employment but also underpin metropolitan economic activities through the export income they generate.

They also pay taxes, fees, royalties, and more to governments, thus supporting public services and programs.

Exports: The Tap Filling the Economic Bathtub

The analogy of a bathtub aptly describes the provincial economy:

Exports are the water entering the tub, representing income from goods and services sold outside the province.
Imports are the water draining out, as money leaves the province to purchase external goods and services.
The population-serving sector circulates water within the tub, but it depends entirely on the level of water maintained by exports.

In British Columbia, international exports have historically played a critical role. In 2022, the province exported $56 billion worth of goods internationally, led by forestry products, energy, and minerals. While metropolitan areas may handle the logistics and administration of these exports, the resources themselves—and the wealth they generate—are predominantly extracted and processed in rural and resource-rich regions.

Metropolitan Contributions and Limitations

Although metropolitan regions like Vancouver and Victoria are often seen as economic powerhouses, they are not self-sustaining engines of growth. These cities rely heavily on income generated by resource exports, which enable the public services and infrastructure that support urban living. Without the wealth generated in resource regions, the urban economy would struggle to maintain its standard of living.

For instance, while tech and creative industries are growing in prominence, they remain a smaller fraction of the provincial economy compared to traditional resource industries. The resource sectors accounted for nearly 9% of provincial GDP in 2022, while the tech sector contributed approximately 7%.

Moreover, resource exports are critical for maintaining a positive trade balance, ensuring that the “economic bathtub” remains full.

A Call for Balanced Economic Policy

Policymakers and urban leaders must recognize the disproportionate contribution of British Columbia’s resource regions to the provincial economy. While urban areas drive innovation and service-based activities, these rely on the income generated by resource exports. Efforts to increase taxation or regulatory burdens on resource industries risk undermining the very foundation of provincial prosperity.

Furthermore, metropolitan regions should actively support resource-based industries through partnerships, infrastructure development, and advocacy. A balanced economic strategy—rooted in both urban and resource region contributions—is essential to ensure long-term sustainability and equitable growth across British Columbia.

At least B.C. Premier David Eby has begun to promise that “a new responsible, sustainable development of natural resources will be a core focus of our government,” and has told resource leaders that “Our government will work with you to eliminate unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic processes.” Those leaders await the results.

Conclusion

British Columbia’s prosperity is deeply interconnected, with urban centres and resource regions playing complementary roles. However, the evidence is clear: the resource sectors, particularly in the northern half of the province, remain the primary engines of economic growth. Acknowledging and supporting these industries is not only fair but also critical to sustaining the provincial economy and the public services that benefit all British Columbians.