Energy
From Sippy Cups to Solar Panels: Why a Blanket Ban on Plastics Misses the Mark
From EnergyNow.ca
By Canada Powered by Women
Repeated attempts by the federal government to implement a sweeping ban on plastics don’t consider the crucial role plastics play in the lives of Canadians and energy transformation.
Plastic is in many products we need every day, including medical equipment, headphones, car seats, menstrual products and computers. For mothers enjoying summer with their kids — don’t forget sippy cups, running shoes and diapers (to name a few).
In Canada, as many as 70,000 plastic products are made every day. They are essential, whether we’re working, having fun or simply trying to go about our daily lives.
The chemistry and plastics sector is also the third largest manufacturing sector in Canada, employing more than 190,000 people and shipping more than $108 billion in products in 2022.
So, this fall when the Appeals Court revisits the federal government’s move that labelled many plastics as “toxic”, engaged women from across the country are going to be watching.
They’re watching because the use of plastic touches many areas of their personal lives and interests.
Plastic is a critical component in the energy transformation (which we know engaged women care a lot about) and it’s intricately connected to the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies. These are important considerations for our country’s broader energy policy and sustainability goals, and engaged women are paying attention because they’re not convinced Canada has energy policies that positively affect prosperity.
Engaged women in Canada have also told us they want a balanced approach on the environment, energy and economic prosperity. As a result, their understanding of policies is deepening, and they are focusing on long-term prosperity and affordability while striving for a well-rounded strategy when it comes to policymaking.
So how did we get here with the plastics issue, and what happens next?
The single-use plastic ban that started it all
In 2019, the federal government announced it would seek to ban single-use plastic items such as straws, cutlery, take out containers, stir sticks and plastic bags to reduce plastic waste.
The ban came into effect in 2022 after the federal government added all plastic manufactured items (PMIs) to a toxic substance list (a key step in allowing it to ban these items).
Waste management is a provincial responsibility, but the federal government is able to regulate substances for environmental protection if they are listed as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
In 2023, a federal court reviewed the legislation after complaints surfaced saying Ottawa failed to demonstrate enough scientific evidence to justify the sweeping regulations.
The court agreed, ruling that the federal government exceeded its authority by listing all PMIs as toxic, calling the move “unreasonable and unconstitutional”.
The federal government appealed the decision, and on June 25-26 this year, the Federal Appeals Court heard arguments for and against listing all PMIs as toxic.
A decision on the appeal is expected this fall, and the outcome of the ruling has many concerned about what future bans and other restrictive regulations and policies will mean for everyday Canadians.
How plastics restrictions could hurt Canadians
Christa Seaman, vice-president of the plastics division with the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, says further restrictions on using plastic will have serious ramifications.
“If we start to take away plastic packaging that’s keeping our food safe, for example, you’ll actually see increased cost to consumers because food is going to spoil before it gets to market or shipping is going to be more expensive because the packaging for the products are going to weigh more,” says Seaman.
Seaman also highlights restrictions on plastics could limit the availability of certain products that rely on plastic packaging or components, and Canadians may have reduced access to the variety of inexpensive goods we use today.
Plastics play a big role in low-carbon technology development
There are sustainable ways to keep plastics out of the environment and in the economy, Seaman says, particularly because of the key role they’re already playing in the proliferation of green technologies.
For example, batteries in electric vehicles (EVs) are heavier than in vehicles with internal combustion engines so plastics are being used to manufacture EVs.
“Plastics, being lightweight and durable, are key to keeping the weight of the vehicle down,” she says. “We have less wear and tear on our roads and we’re actually able to increase the driving range per charge, without compromising safety at all.”
Plastics also make renewable energy sources like wind and solar possible, Seaman says. They are a key component in solar panels, and blades of wind turbines are made with fibreglass and other plastic composite materials.
Rather than an outright ban on plastics, we’d be better off exploring how a circular economy — one that includes the appropriate use, reuse and recycling of plastics — can keep plastic waste out of the environment and create a more sustainable future.
Some provinces and territories have also initiated an important shift in responsibility by making producers of plastic products responsible for funding their collection and recycling, Seaman says.
“Provinces are setting the guidelines on achieving certain benchmarks and targets for recyclability, which will go back to how the products are designed,” she says. “The cheaper and easier it is to recycle, the less they’re going to have to spend on the recycling system in the end.”
Seaman says the industry goal is to focus on reduction first by making packaging smaller or thinner. Then the focus turns to reusing plastics, and once those options are exhausted the goal is to recycle.
What we need from policymakers
Listing all plastics as toxic, and then implementing bans around their use, is heavy-handed and misguided.
Seaman says a collaborative approach between policymakers and producers is what’s needed now, and policy should reflect what’s best for the public, the environment and the economy.
“We need all solutions to be on the table: your compostable, your biodegradable, your advanced recycling, your mechanical recycling.”
Seaman says the focus should be placed on outcome-based regulations and science.
“Let’s talk about the outcomes we’re all trying to achieve, because nobody wants to see plastics in the environment, in the waterways or in landfill. Let’s look at what targets need to be and find a way to get there together.”
Daily Caller
East Anglia educated environmental scholar says it’s time to “Scrap Green Energy Handouts Once And For All”
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
As the presidential election nears, it is reasonable to ask why the United States continues to give away billions to “avert” a fabricated climate crisis to countries that have little interest in participating in the charade beyond accepting handouts.
The United States has been a significant contributor to global climate initiatives, most notably through its involvement in the Paris Agreement.
At the 15th U.N. Climate Conference in 2009, rich countries pledged to provide $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 to assist developing nations fight climate change. This target was said to have been achieved for the first time in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Having the world’s largest economy, the United States was expected to support a large portion of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which resulted in a promise of $1 billion.
GCF claims to be the “world’s largest dedicated climate fund” with a portfolio valued at $12 billion, or $45 billion when co-financing of projects is included. According to the GCF website, the fund delivers “transformative climate action in 140 countries” to keep “average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius.”
To which one might respond: Poppycock! No “climate action” will have a significant effect on temperatures, and the 2 degrees cited hardly matter environmentally in any case. Climate policies “will have a trivial effect on temperature but disastrous effects on people worldwide,” concludes a recent paper by Prof. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Prof. William Happer of Princeton University.
Besides, contrary to doomsday predictions, the Earth is flourishing in many ways. Global poverty has decreased dramatically over the past few decades, and agricultural yields have increased significantly partly, because of higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Natural disasters — often cited as evidence of climate change — are causing fewer deaths than ever before, despite population growth and development along coastlines and other vulnerable areas.
The outrage of having taxpayer money poured down the climate rat hole is compounded by the fact that recipients of GCF grants include China and India, the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases that are rapidly expanding consumption of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the bone-headed policy of the United States is to reduce the use of these affordable and abundant fuels to the detriment of household budgets, business profitability, electric grid reliability and national security.
So, instead of pouring billions into international climate projects, the United States should prioritize its own energy security. This means developing its oil, coal and natural gas and strengthening partnerships with reliable allies like Canada.
The United States’ vast reserves of natural gas have been made available through advanced extraction technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, making the country one of the world’s leading producers. This abundance can ensure a reliable and cost-effective energy supply for other nations and reduce U.S. dependency on foreign sources, enhancing national security.
The intermittent nature of wind and solar power — both GCF darlings — necessitates backup power sources or massive battery storage systems that come with their own environmental and economic costs. The materials needed for batteries, for instance, are often mined in regions with poor environmental records or by using child labor.
By contrast, modern fossil fuel extraction in the United States and Canada is subject to some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world. Ironically, by outsourcing energy production to less regulated countries in the name of “going green,” the United States causes more environmental harm globally.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis in Europe starkly illustrated the dangers of energy dependence. European countries, having underinvested in fossil-fuel infrastructure and a reliance on Russian gas, found themselves in a precarious position.
This example alone is enough for the United States to reset its priorities. Promotion of failed and mostly unwanted “green” policies should be replaced with aggressive development of fossil fuel resources, as well as nuclear power and building robust energy partnerships with allies.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
Daily Caller
Biden-Harris Admin’s Multi-Billion Dollar Electric School Bus Program Is A Huge Gift To China, House Report Finds
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Owen Klinsky
The Biden-Harris administration’s $5 billion Clean School Bus Program uses nearly 400% more taxpayer dollars per school bus and benefits the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), a House report revealed Tuesday.
The 51-page report from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce found promoting electric school buses and other electric vehicles (EVs) enriches the CCP as the EV supply chain is roughly 90% dependent on China, raising both national security and human rights concerns. It also highlighted immense expenses for taxpayers, with the average electric school bus under the first iteration of the Clean School Bus Program — the first of three iterations — costing $381,191, nearly four times that of a typical full-sized diesel school bus.
“It is clear the $5 billion Clean School Bus Program is overall a failure and, in many cases, a waste of Americans’ hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” Republican Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said in a statement regarding the report’s findings. “The program, led by the radical Biden-Harris EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], props up a market that relies heavily upon a supply chain dominated by the Chinese Communist Party.”
Funded by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Clean School Bus Program provided the Biden-Harris EPA with funds over five years to “replace existing school buses with zero-emission and clean school buses.”
Kamala Harris led the Biden Administration's $5,000,000,000 EV school bus program.
After 3 years, just 60 buses are on the road.
That's over $83,300,000 per bus.
A vote for Kamala is a vote to waste more tax dollars on failed green programs.
— Daniel Turner (@DanielTurnerPTF) July 29, 2024
China currently accounts for approximately two-thirds of global EV battery cell production, while the U.S. manufactured just 7% as of 2022, raising national security concerns as the U.S. would likely have to depend on Chinese EV technology for its electric school buses, according to the report. Furthermore, the government-subsidized purchases of electric school buses under the Clean School Bus Program incentivize pre-existing human rights abuses in the EV supply, including the use of Uyghur forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region.
The report also identified limited range as an issue, with standard electric school buses from leading manufacturer BlueBird able to travel just 120 miles on a single charge, while some propane models can travel 400 miles before needing to refuel. The range problem can also be exacerbated by cold and warm weather conditions, with a study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory finding electric transit buses lose roughly a third of their range at 25 degrees Fahrenheit compared to ideal conditions.
Electric school buses also increase the risk of fraud due to a lack of documentation requirements for contractors, with the EPA relying solely on self-certified applications and estimates created by applicants, according to the report. A separate July report from a Maryland county’s Office of the Inspector General resulted in millions of dollars in “wasteful spending.”
“The EPA launched the Clean School Bus program without sufficient safeguards and considerations for practical hurdles applicants may face. For example, the EPA did not require documentation for some of the required application information and allowed contractors enthused at the opportunity to receive federal funding to apply on behalf of unknowing school districts, some of which eventually withdraw from the program,” the report states. “The EPA failed to account for the considerable electric infrastructure upgrades that electrifying a school bus fleet could require, potentially leading to delays for schools in utilizing their new buses.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Singh must push Trudeau to scrap the carbon tax
Biden Admin Touts Reduction In Border Crossings While Flying In Hundreds Of Thousands Of Migrants
Border Patrol Agent Lashes Out At Biden-Harris Admin, Calling Job ‘Migrant Concierge Service’ Amid Border Crisis
Kamala Harris Is Full On Hiding Her Climate Agenda From Voters
$40 million weekly cash shipments from US are stabilizing Afghanistan’s Taliban government
New Brunswick premier took just 3 days to ban group giving explicit presentation at schools: docs
Police arrest second suspect in August 6 murder and attempted murder in Rocky View County
-
Economy2 days agoScrap the second carbon tax: Taxpayers Federation
-
COVID-1922 hours agoCanada approves Moderna’s latest experimental COVID shot starting after 6 months old
-
Addictions1 day agoWATCH: “Government Heroin” documentary exposes safer supply scandal in London, Ontario
-
espionage1 day agoChronic Counter-terrorism Lapses at the Border
-
Alberta1 day ago$8.6 billion committed: Province to fund up to 30 new schools and 8 modernizations in each of next 3 years
-
Daily Caller1 day agoUnion Bigwigs Decline To Endorse Anyone For President Despite Rank-And-File Members Overwhelmingly Backing Trump
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoAustralian woman fired, dragged before tribunal for saying only women can breastfeed
-
National22 hours agoConservatives plan non-confidence vote against Trudeau gov’t next week, setting up possible fall election