Danielle Smith vows Alberta won’t be ‘transitioning away’ from oil, natural gas

‘Energy security and affordability are comparable with sustainability. Alberta is actively reducing emissions through technology, not taxes’

Alberta is refusing to phase out oil and gas, despite the regulations proposed by Prime Minster Justin Trudeau’s government.

On November 20, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the province will focus on reducing emissions but will not eliminate the gas and oil sector, as effectively demanded by the Trudeau government.

Energy security and affordability are comparable with sustainability. Alberta is actively reducing emissions through technology, not taxes.

But, we will not be transitioning away from oil and natural gas. pic.twitter.com/H6k9czBOjN

— Danielle Smith (@ABDanielleSmith) November 20, 2023

“Energy security and affordability are comparable with sustainability. Alberta is actively reducing emissions through technology, not taxes,” she wrote.

“But, we will not be transitioning away from oil and natural gas,” Smith declared.

Also on November 20, Smith blasted Alberta’s leader of the provincial opposition, the New Democratic Party’s Rachel Notley, for pushing for energy regulations and the carbon tax on Albertans.

“I think Albertans wish the member of the opposite would stand up for Albertans for a change rather than take marching orders from the federal NDP leader,” she said, referring to NDP leader Jagmeet Singh who has sided with the Liberal government in favor of the carbon tax and energy regulations.

“If they had just agreed to eliminate the carbon tax, it would reduce inflation 16%, which means we wouldn’t have to see an increase in interest rates, which means people could afford to buy a house as well,” she continued, referring to information from the Bank of Canada.

“Maybe she should stand up for Albertans for a change,” Smith declared.

WATCH: Danielle Smith destroys Jagmeet Singh, Rachel Notley, and rips apart the evil deal the two have, that is stabbing Albertans in the back. W Danielle.pic.twitter.com/xHTFm81O5M

— Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) November 21, 2023

Smith’s statements come in response to Trudeau attempting to force a net zero emissions goal on provinces across Canada, regardless of the negative effects it will have on Canadians’ lives.

Trudeau has also refused to extend the carbon tax exemption to all forms of home heating, instead only exempting the forms of heating used in the Liberal-held Atlantic provinces.

Smith has repeatedly refused to submit to the Liberal government’s demands, warning that Canadians could freeze in the winter if the new “clean emissions” regulations are enforced.

Smith’s warnings are not unfounded. Alberta’s electric grid operator, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), warned that Trudeau’s 2035 net-zero power grid goal will mean instability for the western province and are “not feasible.”

In September, Smith announced that she is preparing to use her province’s Sovereignty Act to fight the energy regulations.

The draft version of the federal government’s Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) states that there will be billions of higher costs associated with a so-called “green” power transition, especially in the resource-rich provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, which use natural gas and coal to fuel power plants.

In May, Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault declared that violating environmental regulations banning the use of coal and gas-fired power after 2035 may even result in criminal sanctions, a statement that only increased the tension between the federal government and the provinces opposed to the proposed policies.

The Trudeau government also recently threatened to withhold billions of taxpayer money to provinces that will continue to use resources such as natural gas, oil and coal to generate electricity beyond 2035.

In addition to Smith, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has likewise promised to fight back against the new regulations, saying recently that “Trudeau’s net-zero electricity regulations are unaffordable, unrealistic and unconstitutional.”

“They will drive electricity rates through the roof and leave Saskatchewan with an unreliable power supply. Our government will not let the federal government do that to the Saskatchewan people,” he charged.

The Trudeau government’s current environmental goals – in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” – include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades.

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization with which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.

Up Next

Danielle Smith blasts Trudeau gov’t as ‘lawless’ for pushing climate policies despite court rulings

Don't Miss

Healthcare Overhaul – Services to be provided by nurses in their own clinics

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

Salary costs in Prime Minister’s Office increase under Trudeau

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 1 hour ago

Is the Price of Reconciliation that we Must Pretend to Believe a Lie?

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop

Alberta

Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop

Published on November 8, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

After considerable waiting, the Trudeau government released on Monday draft regulations to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers.

The proposed regulations would set a cap on GHG emissions equivalent to 35 per cent of the emissions produced in 2019 and create a GHG emissions “cap and trade” system to enable oil and gas producers (who cannot reduce emissions enough to avoid the cap) to buy credits from other producers able to meet the cap. Producers unable to meet the cap will also be able to obtain emission credits (of up to 20 per cent of their needed emission reductions) by investing in decarbonization programs or by buying emission “offsets” in Canada’s carbon markets.

According to the government, the cap will “cap pollution, drive innovation, and create jobs in the oil and gas industry.” But in reality, while the cap may well cap pollution and drive some innovation, according to several recent analyses it won’t create jobs in the oil and gas industry and will in fact kill many jobs.

For example, the Conference Board of Canada think-tank estimates that the cap would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, kill up to 151,300 jobs across Canada by 2030, and national economic growth from 2023 to 2030 would slow from 15.3 per cent to 14.3 per cent.

Not surprisingly, Alberta would be hardest hit. According to the Board, from 2023 to 2030, the province’s economic growth would fall from an estimated 17.8 per cent to 13.3 per cent and employment growth would fall from 15.8 per cent to 13.6 per cent over the same period. Alberta government revenues from the sector would decline by 4.5 per cent in 2030 compared to a scenario without the cap. As a result, Alberta government revenues would be $4.5 billion lower in nominal terms in fiscal year 2030/31. And between 54,000 to 91,500 of Canada’s job losses would occur in Alberta.

Another study by Deloitte estimates that, due to the federal cap, Alberta will see 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario would lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec would lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.

Overall, according to Deloitte, Canada would experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. (For context, Canada’s economic growth in 2023 was only 1.1 per cent.)

And what will Canadians get for all that economic pain?

In my study published last year by the Fraser Institute, I found that, even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

Clearly, the Trudeau government’s new proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector will impose significant harms on Canada’s economy, Canadian workers and our quality of life—and hit Alberta with a wallop. And yet, as a measure intended to avert harmful climate change, it’s purely performative (like many of the government’s other GHG regulations) and will generate too little emission reductions to have any meaningful impact on the climate.

In a world of rational policy development, where the benefits of government regulations are supposed to exceed their costs, policymakers would never consider this proposed cap. The Trudeau government will submit the plan to Parliament, and if the cap becomes law, it will await some other future government to undo the damage inflicted on Canadians and their families.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Edmonton public school board takes action in defiance of Alberta’s proposed pro-family policies

Published on November 7, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.

An Edmonton school board submitted a motion to defy Alberta’s policy requiring parental knowledge if a child goes by different pronouns at school.

On November 5, the Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new pro-family policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.

“The Division’s current policy on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression is part of our mandate to provide a safe, welcoming and healthy school environment for students, staff and families,” the board claimed in the motion sent to the Board of Trustees.

“The policy changes being proposed by Premier Smith will contradict what our Board, and previous Boards of Trustees, have worked hard to ensure: the safety and well being of all children in Edmonton Public schools,” it continued.

The new policies, introduced last week by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith under Bill 27, will mean that sex-education classes will not be included in a child’s education, and teachers or school staff will no longer be allowed to conceal whether a student begins to use different pronouns or names.

Once Bill 27 becomes law, schools must notify parents of what is being taught at least “30 days in advance and be given the opportunity to opt in rather than opt out of this instruction.”

However, while Alberta is working to keep parents informed and children safe from the radical LGBT agenda, the Edmonton board has argued parents must be kept in the dark to prevent them from stopping their children from accepting the falsehoods of the LGBT agenda.

“For transgender youth who choose a name different from the one given at birth, use of their chosen name in multiple contexts affirms their gender identity and reduces mental health risks, which are known to be high in this group,” the board claimed.

However, significant body of evidence shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them, or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often irreversible surgical and chemical procedures.

Additionally, as LifeSiteNews previously reported, many Ontario parents revealed that public schools did not ask for parental consent before “gender transitioning” their children, resulting in child-parent relationships being destroyed.

Furthermore, many teachers struggle to keep secret from parents. A Saskatchewan teacher who wished to remain anonymous previously told LifeSiteNews that she feels guilty about keeping secrets from parents and supports the decision to keep parents informed.

“I fear that we are not supporting students or parents when we keep secrets,” she explained. “We have many students using alternate names, which sometimes changes frequently during the year, and then are asked by parents if we were aware of the changes after the fact. I feel responsible for keeping the secret and I don’t think it’s fair. I think schools are already taking on too many ‘parent roles’ and it’s important that parents play the ‘parent role’ not teachers!”