Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

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

Published

1 year ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘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,” 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.  

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. 

Before Post

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
conflict / 2 hours ago

The West Is Playing With Fire In Ukraine

Daily Caller / 5 hours ago

Chinese Agents Can Now Access Every American’s Phone Calls And Texts, GOP Senator Warns

Business / 6 hours ago

Taxpayer watchdog calls Trudeau ‘out of touch’ for prioritizing ‘climate change’ while families struggle

Alberta

Alberta mother accuses health agency of trying to vaccinate son against her wishes

Published on November 22, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

 

Alberta Health Services has been accused of attempting to vaccinate a child in school against his parent’s wishes.  

On November 6, Alberta Health Services staffers visited Edmonton Hardisty School where they reportedly attempted to vaccinate a grade 6 student despite his parents signing a form stating that they did not wish for him to receive the vaccines.  

 

“It is clear they do not prioritize parental rights, and in not doing so, they traumatize students,” the boy’s mother Kerri Findling told the Counter Signal. 

During the school visit, AHS planned to vaccinate sixth graders with the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. Notably, both HPV and hepatitis B are vaccines given to prevent diseases normally transmitted sexually.  

Among the chief concerns about the HPV vaccine has been the high number of adverse reactions reported after taking it, including a case where a 16 year-old Australian girl was made infertile due to the vaccine.  

Additionally, in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received reports of 28 deaths associated with the HPV vaccine. Among the 6,723 adverse reactions reported that year, 142 were deemed life-threatening and 1,061 were considered serious.   

Children whose parents had written “refused” on their forms were supposed to return to the classroom when the rest of the class was called into the vaccination area.  

However, in this case, Findling alleged that AHS staffers told her son to proceed to the vaccination area, despite seeing that she had written “refused” on his form. 

When the boy asked if he could return to the classroom, as he was certain his parents did not intend for him to receive the shots, the staff reportedly said “no.” However, he chose to return to the classroom anyway.    

Following his parents’ arrival at the school, AHS claimed the incident was a misunderstanding due to a “new hire,” attesting that the mistake would have been caught before their son was vaccinated.   

“If a student leaves the vaccination center without receiving the vaccine, it should be up to the parents to get the vaccine at a different time, if they so desire, not the school to enforce vaccination on behalf of AHS,” Findling declared.  

Findling’s story comes just a few months after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith promised a new Bill of Rights affirming “God-given” parental authority over children. 

A draft version of a forthcoming Alberta Bill of Rights provided to LifeSiteNews includes a provision beefing up parental rights, declaring the “freedom of parents to make informed decisions concerning the health, education, welfare and upbringing of their children.” 

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.

The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.

For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).

And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.

In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.

This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.

Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.

Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.

Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.

When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.

According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.

Author:

Tegan Hill
Continue Reading

Trending

X