Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Green Technology Is “Pie In The Sky” According To Premier Kenny

Published

4 minute read

The economic benefits of oil and gas in Alberta are well known. The volatility of the boom and bust cycle is also a familiar song and dance in this province. When you take into consideration the environmental impact of the resource, the fossil fuel industry is a double-edged sword. It’s also commonly understood that moving to a renewable future, with less environmental impact, is better for everyone in the long run. 

To me, the solution is pretty straight forward: the sooner we move to a renewable long-term energy mix, the better off we will be. 

The path forward that I’ve heard from the Alberta business community is that we need a strong fossil fuel industry to support a renewable industry – that we can have oil and gas companies working side by side with renewable energy companies, growing the Canadian energy industry together. Profits from a strong economy can be used to finance our diversification. 

During the April 24th press conference, Jason Kenny threw that narrative out the window. He wants Alberta to be a petrol state, full stop. 

When Tom Ross from 660 news asked the Premier about working with the US on the Green New Deal, he got quite upset. He made it absolutely clear that he is only interested in fossil fuel jobs. 

“Our focus is on getting people back to work in Alberta, not pie in the sky ideological schemes.” 

For the UCP, the only good job is an oil job. 

The Premier went on to say “That kind of question in the middle of an economic crisis from a Calgary based media outlet, frankly, throws me for a loop”.

What message does that send to the thousands of Albertans who are working in renewable energy? 

What about Iron and Earth, the non-profit that is training oil field workers with additional skills so they can work in both fields? What about the students at SAIT, NAIT, the University of Calgary, and the University of Alberta who are in alternative energy courses? 

What about the people who are currently working in renewable energy at companies like BluEarth, Eavor, and SkyFire? Do their jobs not count? Are the projects that they operate and profit from “pie in the sky”?

What about the former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new role at Terrestrial Energy? Does the work he’s doing to develop nuclear power in Canada qualify as “pie in the sky”?

The main goal of the Green New Deal is “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” 

That’s a completely reasonable goal in my opinion. There is no reason why Canada and Alberta shouldn’t work with the US to help them develop their plan. Unless your goal is to create oil jobs instead of jobs. 

There are shovel-ready projects that will put Albertans to work in areas other than oil and gas. Not to mention the potential in this province in areas like software, technology, manufacturing, and engineering services. There are viable solutions being left cold because the UCP is so focused on fossil fuels, they can’t see anything else.

Teck Resources exits energy industry group CAPP, citing cost-cutting

Business

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.

In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.

According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.

According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.

The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.

Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.

Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.

And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Stocks sunk Thursday afternoon despite President Donald Trump’s decision to grant major exceptions to the 25% tariffs he put on Mexico and Canada earlier this week.

All three major U.S. market indexes were in the red by the time of Trump’s afternoon bill signing. Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office that steel and aluminum tariffs were on track for next week without modifications.

Trump shrugged off the stock losses, blaming the decline on “globalists.”

“I think it’s globalists that see how rich our country is going to be and don’t like it,” he said.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: They can either absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” And he’s used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.

Trump granted temporary tariff relief to both Canada and Mexico on Thursday by exempting goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement from tariffs until April 2.

On April 2, Trump plans to announce broader reciprocal tariffs against countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods or keep U.S. goods out of their markets through other methods.

Since imposing his latest round of tariffs on top of trading partners this week, Trump has been paring them back. On Wednesday, Trump said the Big Three automakers – Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV – would be exempt from his tariffs for a month.

In February, Trump took a step forward on his plan to put reciprocal tariffs on U.S. trading partners by signing a memo directing staff to come up with solutions in 180 days. Trump previously said he would put those tariffs in place on April 2 to avoid any confusion on April 1.

In his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump said all countries would have to either make their products in the U.S. or be subject to tariffs.

“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020. Trump signed the deal. That agreement continued to allow for duty-free trading between the three countries for products largely made in North America.

U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Continue Reading

Trending

X