Energy
New federal law may actually inject more facts into ‘climate’ debate
From the Fraser Institute
A new federal law—Bill C-59, which received royal assent last month—has Canada’s oil and gas industry and the premiers of oil and gas provinces up in arms.
Specifically, in legalese, it allows government or outside litigants to review a “representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of a product’s benefits for protecting the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological effects of climate change that is not based on an adequate and proper test, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation.”
These “reviews” would be conducted by government courts where claimants would have to prove the truthfulness of what they were saying.
Opponents of the law argue that it constitutes a gag order on Canada’s oil and gas sector, to prevent them from marketing their products, services and technologies in a positive way. And indeed, the legislation would gag a lot oil and gas sector talk, because all claims about climate change are highly uncertain. The law would impose severe penalties on those who can’t prove themselves innocent of misrepresentation, including fines up to $15,000,000.
Industry and political objections aside, however, a good argument can be made that government does have a legitimate interest in deterring businesses from engaging in fraudulent practices or false advertising.
For example, while warming is certainly real (1.1 degrees Celsius since 1850), the human contribution to this warming is unclear. Potentially harmful changes to the climate radiating from that increased warming are highly unclear, and the ultimate impacts on human health stemming from climate change are almost completely unknown and unknowable, depending, as they would, on unpredictable economic, technologic and social factors.
Thus, any claims about a technology such as “carbon capture and storage” reducing the risks of climate change almost certainly can’t be proven truthful in a rigorous cause-and-effect way before a courtroom standard of truth in advertising.
Similarly, technologies and practices that reduce the carbon intensity of oil and gas production, often portrayed as mitigating climate risk, cannot be shown to do so in a direct provable cause-and-effect way, because climate risks themselves are multi-factorial and still speculative, and the impacts of relatively small emission reductions remain unquantifiable.
With this new federal law, the Trudeau government seemingly wants to prevent the oil and gas sector from defending its products, operations, technologies and services on the grounds that some of their actions have already, and will in future, mitigate climate risk. The oil and gas industry and its supporters say this will render the industry unable to defend itself from onerous regulations and government actions meant to drive them out of business.
Of course, a fair argument can be made that businesses in the oil and gas sector should not make claims about climate change mitigation that they can’t back up in court, and that they should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other business. And due to this new law, they will likely appear in court someday to defend themselves against the government’s long-stated belief that the industry should be shut down.
However, to the extent the new law is limited to particularly unprovable claims regarding certain technologies, this may not be an entirely bad thing. It may actually force Canada’s climate policy discussions to be grounded more in fact than fancy.
Author:
Business
Trump’s oil tariffs could spell deficits for Alberta government
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
After recently meeting with president-elect Donald Trump, Premier Danielle Smith warned that Trump’s tariffs could include oil. That’s just one more risk factor added to Alberta’s already precarious fiscal situation, which could mean red ink in the near future.
Trump has threatened a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian goods, which includes oil, and could come as early as January 20 when he’s sworn in as president. Such tariffs would likely widen the price differential between U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil and Alberta’s Western Canadian select (WCS) heavy oil.
In other words, the average price difference between Canadian oil (WCS) and U.S. oil (WTI) could increase, reflecting a larger discount on Canadian oil. According to the Alberta government’s estimate, every $1 that WCS is sold at discount is a $600 million hit to the government’s budget.
To maintain its $4.6 billion projected budget surplus this fiscal year (2024/25), the Smith government is banking on oil prices (WTI) averaging US$74.00 per barrel in 2024/25. But every $1 decline in oil prices leads to a $630 million swing in Alberta’s bottom line. And WTI has dropped as low as US$67.00 per barrel in recent months.
Put simply, Trump’s proposed tariffs would flip Alberta’s budget surplus to a budget deficit, particularly if paired with lower oil prices.
While Smith has been aggressively trying to engage with lawmakers in the United States regarding the tariffs and the inclusion of oil, there’s not much she can do in the short-run to mitigate the effects if Trump’s tariff plan becomes a reality. But the Smith government can still help stabilize Alberta’s finances over the longer term. The key is spending restraint.
For decades, Alberta governments have increased spending when resource revenues were relatively high, as they are today, but do not commensurately reduce spending when resource revenues inevitably decline, which results in periods of persistent budget deficits and debt accumulation. And Albertans already pay approximately $650 each in provincial government debt interest each year.
To its credit, the Smith government has recognized the risk of financing ongoing spending with onetime windfalls in resource revenue and introduced a rule to limit increases in operating spending (e.g. spending on annual items such as government employee compensation) to the rate of population growth and inflation. Unfortunately, the government’s current plan for restraint is starting from a higher base level of spending (compared to its original plan) due to spending increases over the past two years.
Indeed, the government will spend a projected $1,603 more per Albertan (inflation-adjusted) this fiscal year than the Smith government originally planned in its 2022 mid-year budget update. And higher spending means the government has increased its reliance on volatile resource revenue—not reduced it. Put simply, Smith’s plan to grow spending below the rate of inflation and population growth isn’t enough to avoid budget deficits—more work must be done to rein in high spending.
Trump’s tariffs could help plunge Alberta back into deficit. To help stabilize provincial finances over the longer term, the Smith government should focus on what it can control—and that means reining in spending.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Alberta
Why U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy would cause damage on both sides of the border
Marathon Petroleum’s Detroit refinery in the U.S. Midwest, the largest processing area for Canadian crude imports. Photo courtesy Marathon Petroleum
From the Canadian Energy Centre
More than 450,000 kilometres of pipelines link Canada and the U.S. – enough to circle the Earth 11 times
As U.S. imports of Canadian oil barrel through another new all-time high, leaders on both sides of the border are warning of the threat to energy security should the incoming Trump administration apply tariffs on Canadian oil and gas.
“We would hope any future tariffs would exclude these critical feedstocks and refined products,” Chet Thompson, CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), told Politico’s E&E News.
AFPM’s members manufacture everything from gasoline to plastic, dominating a sector with nearly 500 operating refineries and petrochemical plants across the United States.
“American refiners depend on crude oil from Canada and Mexico to produce the affordable, reliable fuels consumers count on every day,” Thompson said.
The United States is now the world’s largest oil producer, but continues to require substantial imports – to the tune of more than six million barrels per day this January, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Nearly 70 per cent of that oil came from Canada.
Many U.S. refineries are set up to process “heavy” crude like what comes from Canada and not “light” crude like what basins in the United States produce.
“New tariffs on [Canadian] crude oil, natural gas, refined products, or critical input materials that cannot be sourced domestically…would directly undermine energy affordability and availability for consumers,” the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s largest trade association, wrote in a recent letter to the United States Trade Representative.
More than 450,000 kilometres of oil and gas pipelines link Canada and the United States – enough to circle the Earth 11 times.
The scale of this vast, interconnected energy system does not exist anywhere else. It’s “a powerful card to play” in increasingly unstable times, researchers with S&P Global said last year.
Twenty-five years from now, the United States will import virtually exactly the same amount of oil as it does today (7.0 million barrels per day in 2050 compared to 6.98 million barrels per day in 2023), according to the EIA’s latest outlook.
“We are interdependent on energy. Americans cutting off Canadian energy would be like cutting off their own arm,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, a special advisor to the Business Council of Canada.
Trump’s threat to apply a 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada, including energy, would likely “result in lower production in Canada and higher gasoline and energy costs to American consumers while threatening North American energy security,” Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEO Lisa Baiton said in a statement.
“We must do everything in our power to protect and preserve this energy partnership.”
Energy products are Canada’s single largest export to the United States, accounting for about a third of total Canadian exports to the U.S., energy analysts Rory Johnston and Joe Calnan noted in a November report for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
The impact of applying tariffs to Canadian oil would likely be spread across Canada and the United States, they wrote: higher pump prices for U.S. consumers, weaker business for U.S. refiners and reduced returns for Canadian producers.
“It is vitally important for Canada to underline that it is not just another trade partner, but rather an indispensable part of the economic and security apparatus of the United States,” Johnston and Calnan wrote.
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
-
Alberta1 day ago
Why U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy would cause damage on both sides of the border
-
Business1 day ago
Donald Trump appoints Mel Gibson, Sylvester Stallone as special ambassadors to Hollywood
-
Business2 days ago
Conservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago
Death of an Open A.I. Whistleblower
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
No, Really. Carney Is An Outsider. And Libs Are Done
-
Business1 day ago
Trump’s oil tariffs could spell deficits for Alberta government
-
Business1 day ago
Taxpayers Federation praises Poilievre’s plan to reverse capital gains tax hike