Guilbeault’s Emissions Obsession: Ten Reasons to Call Time Out on Canada’s CO2 Crusade

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Before we collectively devastate our economies, further reduce our birth rates in a misguided attempt to save the planet, squander trillions of dollars, and halt human progress by making energy both scarce and exorbitantly expensive, it’s crucial to remember that human-induced climate change is not a settled fact, but rather a hypothesis largely unsupported by the history of the climate but supported by climate models that have considerable error built into them.

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault recently announced a plan requiring the oil and gas industry to cut CO2 emissions by more than one-third from 2019 levels by 2030. This deadline might seem far off, but it also stipulates that at least 20 percent of light-duty vehicle sales must be zero-emission by 2026, a deadline that’s just around the corner. This is all part of Guilbeault’s strategy to achieve the ambitious net-zero emissions target by 2050.

There are at least ten reasons suggesting that this plan is absurd.

CO2 is Not a Pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is, in fact, a fertilizer crucial for the growth of all vegetation. Higher concentrations of CO2 result in increased crop yields and more productive forests. Healthier forests, in turn, absorb more CO2, providing oxygen in exchange which is essential for the survival of all living organisms including humans.

CO2 is a Trace Gas

During my extensive career as a university professor, I encountered numerous students eager to support policies that might devastate the livelihoods of thousands of men and women who depend on the oil and gas industry, believing these sacrifices would save the planet. Their near-religious zeal was only matched by their stunning ignorance of basic CO2 facts.

Class surveys I conducted showed that almost one hundred percent of my students were unaware that CO2 is a trace gas, with its atmospheric concentration having varied significantly over centuries and even seasonally. Currently, CO2 represents about 0.04% of the atmospheric gases, or approximately 420 parts per million (ppm). By comparison, nitrogen makes up about 78%, and oxygen around 21%.

The best estimates suggest that human activities contribute roughly 4% of the total annual CO2 emissions (16 ppm). Canada’s share of global emissions is approximately 1.5% (0.24 ppm), essentially a rounding error in the total calculation.

Why Alberta and Not China?

It is no secret that Guilbeault harbours a special animosity towards Alberta. His energy regulations appear designed to severely impact Alberta’s economy despite the province being a relatively minor player on the global stage. In contrast, China, by far the largest contributor to global CO2 emissions, builds two new coal-powered (dirty) power plants every week and is the primary beneficiary of Canada’s coal exports. Why doesn’t Guilbeault turn his scornful gaze towards the People’s Republic? Even during his visit to China in August 2023 for climate talks, not only did he overlook that country’s appalling environmental track record, to add insult to injury, while there he critiqued Suncor for recommitting to oil sands development, highlighting a troubling policy double standard.

Watch What They Do, not What They Say

The economic and cultural elites, who incessantly warn of an impending climate catastrophe, seem to contradict their own claims by their extravagant lifestyles. Their opulent residences, frequent use of private jets, and other extravagances reveal a significant disconnect between their rhetoric and their behaviour, suggesting either hypocrisy or a lack of belief in the very crisis they promote.

Magical Thinking

When they purport to compel the oil and gas industry to adopt new technologies, politicians and policymakers indulge in a particularly delusional form of magical thinking. First, the industry is already one of the most innovative sectors in the economy. Second, these individuals demonstrate a profound ignorance of both climate change and the complex challenges of energy production. As is typical of low-information politicians, they seem to believe that all they need to do to enact change in line with their utopian ideals is to snap their fingers or twitch their collective nose.

A Multiplier of Human Misery

All the regulations that politicians like Guilbeault introduce with a regularity that rivals the proverbial cuckoo clock have nothing to do with creating new sources of energy or making energy more accessible and affordable. If they were genuinely concerned about their constituents’ welfare, these politicians would incentivize nuclear energy. But they conspicuously do not. These incessant regulations, taxes, and oppressive energy policies serve one purpose: to inflate energy prices so high that middle-class individuals are forced to drive less, reduce their energy use for heating and cooling their homes, and drastically curbing manufacturing. To the extent that such policies persist, they will impose an increasingly devastating economic burden on the poor and the working class.

Extreme Weather Events

A radical reduction in CO2 emissions will not only lead to a weaker economy and increased poverty, but it will also diminish our capacity to respond to extreme weather conditions, which will occur regardless of the taxation governments impose on human activities.

The Used-Car Salesman Syndrome

You know you’re being conned when a used car salesperson fails to mention the downsides of the vehicle being considered. The same skepticism and caution should be applied to politicians who tout only the benefits of their proposed policies without discussing the costs. Either they are blissfully unaware of these costs, or they believe they will be insulated from the real-world repercussions of their harmful policies due to their status, wealth, or connections.

Anti-Human Perspective

While it’s unwise to gratuitously attribute malicious intent to anyone, the evidence suggests that proponents of radical climate change policies operate from what can only be described as an anti-human perspective. They view human beings as liabilities and parasites rather than, as the Judeo-Christian tradition asserts, the valuable assets they truly are.

A Matter of Debate

Before we collectively devastate our economies, further reduce our birth rates in a misguided attempt to save the planet, squander trillions of dollars, and halt human progress by making energy both scarce and exorbitantly expensive, it’s crucial to remember that human-induced climate change is not a settled fact, but rather a hypothesis largely unsupported by the history of the climate but supported by climate models that have considerable error built into them.

In conclusion, Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish political scientist and founder of the prestigious Copenhagen Consensus Center—an organization renowned for producing some of the most authoritative studies on environmental issues—wisely reminds us that while there are environmental concerns needing attention, it’s questionable whether climate change constitutes an existential crisis that warrants dedicating all our resources at the expense of human life and flourishing.

Pierre Gilbert is Associate Professor Emeritus at Canadian Mennonite University. He writes here for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Don't Miss

Sending arms to Ukraine is unnecessarily placing American lives in danger

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

Guilbeault’s Emissions Obsession: Ten Reasons to Call Time Out on Canada’s CO2 Crusade

International / 24 mins ago

German chancellor loses vote of confidence in parliament, likely triggering snap election

Business / 31 mins ago

The CBC gets $1.4 billion per year, but the Trudeau government wants to give it more

Energy

Biden Throws Up One More Last-Minute Roadblock For Trump’s Energy Dominance Agenda

Published on December 17, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

The Biden administration issued its long-awaited assessment on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports on Tuesday, with its findings potentially complicating President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to unleash America’s energy industry.

The Department of Energy (DOE) published the study nearly a year after the administration announced in January it would pause approvals for new export capacity to non-free trade agreement countries to conduct a fresh assessment of whether additional exports are in the public interest. While the report stopped short of calling for a complete ban on new export approvals, it suggests that increasing exports will drive up domestic prices, jack up emissions and possibly help China, conclusions that will potentially open up projects approved by the incoming Trump team to legal vulnerability, according to Bloomberg News.

“The main takeaway is that a business-as-usual approach is neither sustainable nor advisable,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told reporters on Tuesday. “American consumers and communities and our climate would pay the price.”

Trump has pledged to end the freeze on export approvals immediately upon assuming office in January 2025 as part of a wider “energy dominance” agenda, a plan to unshackle U.S. energy producers to drive down domestic prices and reinforce American economic might on the global stage. It could take the Trump administration up to a year to issue its own analysis, and Bloomberg News reported Tuesday that “findings showing additional exports cause more harm than good could make new approvals issued by Trump’s administration vulnerable to legal challenges.”

Republican Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers slammed the study as “a clear attempt to cement Joe Biden’s rush-to-green agenda” in a Tuesday statement and asserted that the entire LNG pause was a political choice meant to appease hardline environmentalist interests.

Notably, S&P Global released its own analysis of the LNG market on Tuesday and found that increasing U.S. LNG exports is unlikely to have any “major impact” on domestic natural gas prices, contradicting a key assertion of the DOE’s brand new study. Members of the Biden administration were reportedly influenced by a Cornell University professor’s questionable 2023 study claiming that natural gas exports are worse for the environment than domestically-mined coal, and officials also reportedly met with a 25-year old TikTok influencer leading an online campaign against LNG exports before announcing the pause in January 2024.

“It’s time to lift the pause on new LNG export permits and restore American energy leadership around the world,” Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said of the new DOE report. “After nearly a year of a politically motivated pause that has only weakened global energy security, it’s never been clearer that U.S. LNG is critical for meeting growing demand for affordable, reliable energy while supporting our allies overseas.”

Anne Bradbury, CEO of the American Exploration and Production Council, also addressed the DOE’s report in a statement, advising the public to be skeptical of Biden administration efforts to play politics with natural gas exports.

“There is strong bipartisan support for U.S. LNG exports because study after study shows that they strengthen the American economy, shore up global security, and advance collective emissions reductions goals – all while US natural gas prices remain affordable and stable from an abundant domestic supply of natural gas,” said Bradbury. “U.S. LNG exports have been a cornerstone of global energy security, providing reliable supplies to allies and reducing emissions by replacing higher-carbon fuels abroad, and it is critical that any study or policy impacting this vital sector should reflect thorough analysis and active collaboration with all stakeholders. Further attempts by this administration to politicize or distort the impact of U.S. LNG exports should be met with skepticism.”

Energy

Dig, Baby, Dig: Making Coal Great Again. A Convincing Case for Coal

Published on December 17, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Gordon Tomb

Has the time come to make coal great again? Maybe.

“Coal is cheap and far less profitable to export than to burn domestically. so, let’s burn it here,” says Steve Milloy, a veteran observer of the energy industry who served on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team for the first Trump administration. “It will provide an abundance of affordable and reliable electricity while helping coal communities thrive for the long term.”

The U.S. coal industry has been in a long decline since at least President Barack Obama’s regulatory “war on coal” initiated 15 years ago. At the same time, natural gas became more competitive with coal as a power-plant fuel when new hydrofracturing techniques lowered the price of the former.

In Pennsylvania, a state with prodigious amounts of both fuels, natural gas has all but replaced coal for electric generation. Between 2001 and 2021, gas’ share of power production rose from 2% to 52% as coal’s dropped from 57% to 12%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Last year, Pennsylvania’s largest coal-fired power plant shut down under the pressures of regulations and economics after spending nearly $1 billion on pollution controls in the preceding decade.

Nationally, between 2013 and 2023, domestic coal production declined by more than 30% and industry employment by more than 40%.

While the first Trump administration provided somewhat of a respite from federal hostility toward fossil fuels in general and coal in particular, President Joe Biden revived Obama’s viciously negative stance on hydrocarbons while promoting weather-dependent wind and solar energy. This absurdity has wrecked livelihoods and made the power grid more prone to blackouts.

Fortunately, the second Trump administration will be exponentially more friendly toward development of fossil fuels. High on the list is increasing exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). “[T]he next four years could prime the liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets for a golden era,” says market analyst Rystad Energy. “[T]he returning president’s expected policies are likely to accelerate U.S. LNG infrastructure expansion through deregulation and faster permitting…”

All of which is in line with Milloy’s formulation of energy policy. We should “export our gas to Europe and Asia, places that will pay six times more than it sells for in the U.S.” says Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com and author of books on regulatory overreach, fearmongering and corruption. “Let’s reopen mothballed coal plants, build new coal plants…”

Accompanying rising expectations of easing regulatory obstacles for natural gas is hope that coal can clear daunting environmental hurdles put in place by “green” zealots.

For one thing, the obnoxiously irrational EPA rule defining carbon dioxide — a byproduct of combustion — as a pollutant is destined for the dustbin of destructive policy as common sense and honest science are reestablished among regulators.

Moreover, clean-coal technology makes the burning of the fuel, well, clean. China and India have more than 100 ultra-super critical coal-fired plants that employ high pressures and temperatures to achieve extraordinary efficiencies and minimal pollution. Yet, the United States, which originated the technology more than a decade ago, has only one such facility — the John W. Turk plant in Arkansas.

The point is the United States is underutilizing both coal and the best technology for its use. At the current rate of consumption, the nation’s 250 billion tons of recoverable coal is enough for more than 200 years.

So, if more natural gas winds up being exported as LNG at higher prices, might not coal be an economical — and logical — alternative?

Nuclear power is another possibility, but not for a while. Even with a crash development program and political will aplenty, it is likely to take decades for nuclear reactors to be deployed sufficiently to carry the bulk of the nation’s power load. Barriers range from the need to sort out competing nuclear technologies to regulatory lethargy —if not misfeasance — to financing needs in the many billions and a dearth of qualified engineers.

The last big U.S. reactors to go into operation — units 3 and 4 of Georgia Power’s Vogtle plant — took more than a decade to build and went $17 billion over budget.

“The regulatory environment is better, but it still costs too much and takes too long to get new reactors approved,” writes long-time nuclear enthusiast Robert Bryce.

Can anybody say, “Dig, baby, dig?”

Gordon Tomb is a senior advisor with the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia, and once drove coal trucks.