Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Ottawa should end war on plastics for sake of the environment

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives…

For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.

It’s been known for years that efforts to ban plastic products—and encourage people to use alternatives such as paper, metal or glass—can backfire. By banning plastic waste and plastic products, governments lead consumers to switch to substitutes, but those substitutes, mainly bulkier and heavier paper-based products, mean more waste to manage.

Now a new study by Fanran Meng of the University of Sheffield drives the point home—plastic substitutes are not inherently better for the environment. Meng uses comprehensive life-cycle analysis to understand how plastic substitutes increase or decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by assessing the GHG emissions of 16 uses of plastics in five major plastic-using sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles and consumer durables. These plastics, according to Meng, account for about 90 per cent of global plastic volume.

Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. Read that again. When considering 90 per cent of global plastic use, alternatives to plastic lead to greater GHG emissions than the plastic products they displace. For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.

A few substitutions were GHG neutral, such as swapping plastic drinking cups and milk containers with paper alternatives. But overall, in the 13 uses where a plastic product has lower emissions than its non-plastic alternatives, the GHG emission impact is between 10 per cent and 90 per cent lower than the next-best alternatives.

Meng concludes that “Across most applications, simply switching from plastics to currently available non-plastic alternatives is not a viable solution for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, care should be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic demand that they result in the removal of the plastics from use rather than a switch to an alternative material” adding that “applying material substitution strategies to plastics never really makes sense.” Instead, Meng suggests that policies encouraging re-use of plastic products would more effectively reduce GHG emissions associated with plastics, which, globally, are responsible for 4.5 per cent of global emissions.

The Meng study should drive the last nail into the coffin of the war on plastics. This study shows that encouraging substitutes for plastic—a key element of the Trudeau government’s climate plan—will lead to higher GHG emissions than sticking with plastics, making it more difficult to achieve the government’s goal of making Canada a “net-zero” emitter of GHG by 2050.

Clearly, the Trudeau government should end its misguided campaign against plastic products, “single use” or otherwise. According to the evidence, plastic bans and substitution policies not only deprive Canadians of products they value (and in many cases, products that protect human health), they are bad for the environment and bad for the climate. The government should encourage Canadians to reuse their plastic products rather than replace them.

Agriculture

P&H Group building $241-million flour milling facility in Red Deer County.

Published on

P&H Milling Group has qualified for the Agri-Processing Investment Tax Credit program

Alberta’s food processing sector is the second-largest manufacturing industry in the province and the flour milling industry plays an important role within the sector, generating millions in annual economic impact and creating thousands of jobs. As Canada’s population continues to increase, demand for high-quality wheat flour products is expected to rise. With Alberta farmers growing about one-third of Canada’s wheat crops, the province is well-positioned to help meet this demand.

Alberta’s Agri-Processing Investment Tax Credit program is supporting this growing sector by helping to attract a new wheat flour milling business to Red Deer County. P&H Milling Group, a division of Parrish & Heimbecker, Limited, is constructing a $241-million facility in the hamlet of Springbrook to mill about 750 metric tonnes of wheat from western Canadian farmers into flour, every single day. The new facility will complement the company’s wheat and durum milling operation in Lethbridge.

“P&H Milling Group’s new flour mill project is proof our Agri-Processing Investment Tax Credit program is doing its job to attract large-scale investments in value-added agricultural manufacturing. With incentives like the ag tax credit, we’re providing the right conditions for processors to invest in Alberta, expand their business and help stimulate our economy.”

RJ Sigurdson, Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation

P&H Milling Group’s project is expected to create about 27 permanent and 200 temporary jobs. Byproducts from the milling process will be sold to the livestock feed industry across Canada to create products for cattle, poultry, swine, bison, goats and fish. The new facility will also have capacity to add two more flour mills as demand for product increases in the future.

“This new facility not only strengthens our position in the Canadian milling industry, but also boostsAlberta’s baking industry by supplying high-quality flour to a diverse range of customers. We are proud to contribute to the local economy and support the agricultural community by sourcing 230,000 metric tonnes of locally grown wheat each year.”

John Heimbecker, CEO, Parrish & Heimbecker, Limited

To be considered for the tax credit program, corporations must invest at least $10 million in a project to build or expand a value-added agri-processing facility in Alberta. The program offers a 12 per cent non-refundable tax credit based on eligible capital expenditures. Through this program, Alberta’s government has granted P&H Milling Group conditional approval for a tax credit estimated at $27.3 million.

“We are grateful P&H Milling Group chose to build here in Red Deer County. This partnership willbolster our local economy and showcase our prime centralized location in Alberta, an advantage that facilitates efficient operations and distribution.”

Jim Wood, mayor, Red Deer County

Quick facts

  • In 2023, Alberta’s food processing sector generated $24.3 billion in sales, making it the province’s second-largest manufacturing industry, behind petroleum and coal.
  • That same year, just over three million metric tonnes of milled wheat and more than 2.3 million metric tonnes of wheat flour was manufactured in Canada.
  • Alberta’s milled wheat and meslin flour exports increased from $8.6 million in 2019 to $19.8 million in 2023, a 130.2 per cent increase.
  • Demand for flour products rose in Alberta from 2019 to 2022, with retail sales increasing by 24 per cent during that period.
  • Alberta’s flour milling industry generated about $840.7 million in economic impact and created more than 2,200 jobs on average between 2018 and 2021.
  • Alberta farmers produced 9.3 million metric tonnes of wheat in 2023, representing 29.2 per cent of total Canadian production.

Related information

Continue Reading

Business

US lawmakers accuse Pfizer, Eli Lilly of testing new drugs on prisoners in Communist China

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Two Republicans and two Democrats in the House of Representatives have leveled stunning allegations against two pharmaceutical companies, calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to investigate potential testing of drugs on prisoners of Communist China.

A bipartisan group of Congress members has leveled stunning allegations against pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Eli Lilly, calling on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate the potential testing of new drugs on prisoners of Communist China.

The letter was sent August 19 to FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Calf and signed by Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chair Rep. John Moolenaar, a Republican from Florida and ranking member and Illinois Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Health Energy & Commerce Subcommittee ranking member and California Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo, and Florida Republican Rep. Neal Dunn.

“For over a decade, it appears that U.S. biopharmaceutical companies conducted clinical trials with China’s military organizations, and specifically with medical centers and hospitals affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA), to determine the safety and effectiveness of new drug candidates prior to approval,” the letter reads. “ … we are also concerned that U.S. biopharmaceutical companies have conducted clinical trials with hospital infrastructure located in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is engaged in genocide of the Uyghur population.”

The lawmakers’ review of publicly available data found that over the last decade major American Pharma companies have conducted “hundreds of clinical trials in China that included at least one entity with PLA in the name as a research trial partner.”

“Even today, one major U.S. biopharmaceutical entity is actively recruiting patients for an advanced Alzheimer drug trial and is partnered with the PLA’s General Hospital and Medical School … and the PLA’s Air Force Medical University. … Previously, another U.S. biopharmaceutical entity used the 307 Hospital of the PLA (307 医院) as the setting for a cancer therapeutic clinical trial.”

Such work not only carries risks of sensitive technology falling into the CCP’s hands, “there are also U.S. biopharmaceutical trials listed on clinicaltrials.gov that were conducted with hospitals located in the XUAR, where credible investigative reports have shown that ethnic minorities in the region are repeatedly forced by the CCP to surrender their body autonomy. As we know, there is simply no ability for firms to conduct due diligence to ensure that clinical trials done in XUAR are voluntary.”

Axios noted that the trials in question concern Pfizer’s kidney cancer drug axitinib (brand name Inlyta), and Eli Lilly’s Alzheimer’s drug donanemab (brand name Kisunla).

The lawmakers asked the FDA to answer several questions related to its knowledge and oversight of such trials and called on the agency to “take on a greater role in protecting U.S. national security interests. With this data, it is clear that the FDA should play a greater role in analyzing U.S. biopharma entities (sic) clinical trial operations in the PRC.”

Pfizer responded that it “is committed to conducting business in an ethical and responsible manner. This includes respecting internationally recognized human rights throughout our operations,” Straight News reported. Eli Lilly claimed that it is “committed to IP protections, and we conduct robust assessments of our partners to ensure they meet Lilly standards for research and data privacy. Further, we oversee their activities when conducting clinical trials to ensure quality and data integrity.”

large body of evidence has found that mass restrictions on personal and economic activity undertaken in 2020 and part of 2021 caused far more harm than good in terms of personal freedom and economics as well as public health, particularly through the controversial COVID vaccines rushed through development by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and the Trump administration.

Yet, so far Big Pharma has largely escaped accountability thanks to the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the PREP Act empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Near the beginning of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak, the Trump administration invoked the Act in declaring the virus a “public health emergency.”

Under this “sweeping” immunity, CRS explained, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those countermeasures are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from those countermeasures, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”

A handful of states are currently making efforts to hold Pharma companies accountable despite this hurdle, such as Florida’s ongoing grand jury investigation into the vaccines’ manufacturers, and a Kansas lawsuit accusing Pfizer of misrepresentation for calling the shots “safe and effective.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X