Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Shell scales back emissions goals, says cutting oil and gas production is ‘not healthy’

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The company’s report mentions that its 2035 ‘net carbon intensity’ target has been ‘retired’ due to ‘uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.’

Shell, a major oil and gas supplier in Canada whose federal government has openly called for the end of fossil fuels, announced that it will not meet its planned 2035 emissions targets.

Wael Sawan, the Anglo-Dutch company’s Canadian CEO, noted in Shell’s latest “energy transition strategy” update that “We believe the world will continue to need oil and gas for many years.”

The company had set a target to reduce its so-called ‘net carbon intensity’ to 20% by 2030 but revised the goal to 15%.

Shell said that “cutting oil and gas production,” the objective of the Canadian government, “is not healthy” for the global energy system.

Shell’s report mentions that its 2035 target has been “retired” due to “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.”

The company still says it has a net-zero target by 2050, but this is not set in stone because “if society is not net-zero in 2050,” then there would be a “significant risk that Shell may not meet this target.”

Shell plans to increase its LNG production by 30%. “Investment in oil and gas will be needed because demand for oil and gas is expected to drop at a slower rate than the natural decline rate of the world’s oil and gas fields, which is 4-5% a year,” the company said.

Other major oil and gas producers such as ExxonMobil, BP, and Canadian company Suncor have all scaled back their own emissions reduction plans.

Faced with the realities of a consumer-driven market and without government interference such as rebates or mandates, studies show that people prefer gas-powered cars over electric vehicles, which are being touted by governments as the saviors to solving what they claim is a “climate change” crisis.

Trudeau’s government is trying to force net-zero regulations on all Canadian provinces, notably on electricity generation, as early as 2035. Alberta is adamantly opposed.

Natural gas and coal are abundant in Canada, notably in Alberta, a province in which Shell has a major presence. In the new year, an extreme cold snap sent temperatures plummeting to nearly minus-50 degrees Celsius (minus-58 degrees Fahrenheit) in much of western Canada. It was so cold that the province of Alberta’s power grid almost collapsed due to a failure of wind and solar power.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been a fierce opponent of Trudeau’s green energy agenda. Earlier this month, she said her province will continue to rely on carbon-based fuel sources for power generation for decades to come after introducing sweeping new regulations restricting the development of so-called “renewable” energy generation from wind turbines and solar farms, saying these types of technologies are not the “silver bullet” the federal government claims they are for power generation.

The Trudeau government has gone as far as to say they will not fund new road projects, all in the name of “climate change,” as was reported by LifeSiteNews last month. Both Smith and Premier Doug Ford of Ontario tore into Guilbeault after he said the federal government would no longer fund any road construction projects and instead funnel the savings to “climate change” projects that promote people walk instead of drive.

Smith has been battling the minister for the last few months over his extreme climate change policies that seek to destroy Alberta’s oil and gas sector.

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.

Canada has the third largest oil and gas reserves in the world, with most of it in Alberta. However, since taking office in 2015, Trudeau has continued to push his radical environmental agenda  similar to the agendas being pushed the WEF’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.”

Business

Trade retaliation might feel good—but it will hurt Canada’s economy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

To state the obvious, president-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose an across-the-board 25 per cent tariff on Canadian exports to the United States has gotten the attention of Canadian policymakers who are considering ways to retaliate.

Reportedly, if Trump makes good on his tariff threat, the federal government may levy retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of American-made goods including orange juice, ceramic products such as sinks and toilets, and some steel products. And NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he wants Canada to block exports of critical minerals such as aluminum, lithium and potash to the United States, saying that if Trump “wants to pick a fight with Canada, we have to make sure it’s clear that it’s going to hurt Americans as well.”

Indeed, the ostensible goal of tariff retaliation is to inflict economic damage on producers and workers in key U.S. jurisdictions while minimizing harm to Canadian consumers of products imported from the U.S. The hope is that there will be sufficient political blowback from Canada’s retaliation that Republican members of Congress will eventually view Trump’s tariffs as an unacceptable risk to their re-election and pressure him to roll them back.

But while Canadians might feel good about tit-for-tat retaliation against Trump’s trade bullying and taunting, it might well make things worse for the Canadian economy. For example, even selective tariffs will increase the cost of living for Canadians as importers of tariffed U.S. goods pass the tax along to domestic consumers. Retaliatory tariffs might also harm productivity growth in Canada by encouraging increased domestic production of goods that are produced relatively inefficiently here at home compared to in the U.S. Make no mistake—once trade protections are put in place, the beneficiaries have a strong vested interest in having the protections maintained indefinitely. While Trump will be gone in four years, tariffs imposed by Ottawa to retaliate against his actions will likely remain in place for longer.

The U.S. president has substantial leeway under existing legislation to implement trade measures such as tariffs. While Trump has several legislative options to impose new tariffs against Canada and Mexico, he’ll likely use the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president power to regulate imports and impose duties in response to an emergency involving any unusual and extraordinary threat to national security, foreign policy or the economy. According to Trump’s rhetoric, the emergency is illegal immigration and drug traffic originating in Canada and Mexico.

However risible Trump’s emergency claim might be when applied to Canada, overturning any action under the IEEPA, or some other enabling legislation, would require a legal challenge. And in fact, because no president has yet used the IEEPA to impose tariffs, the legality of Trump’s actions remains in doubt. In this context, a group of governors sympathetic to Canada’s position (and their own political fortunes) might spearhead a legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs with encouragement and support from the Canadian government.

To be sure, any legal challenge would take time to work its way through the U.S. court system. But it will likely also take time for domestic opposition to Trump’s tariffs to gain sufficient political momentum to effect any change. Indeed, given the current composition of Congress, it’s far from clear that a Team Canada effort to rally broad anti-tariff support among U.S. politicians and business leaders would bear fruit while Trump is in office.

While direct retaliation might be emotionally satisfying to Canadians, it would likely do more economic harm than good. And while a legal challenge will not obviate the immediate economic harm Canada will suffer from Trump’s tariffs, it might help limit the ability of Trump (and any future president) to use trade policy for political leverage in our bilateral relationship. After all, there’s no guarantee that the next president will not be a Trump acolyte.

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Trump signs executive order banning government censorship

Published on

From The Center Square

By Dan McCaleb

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order banning the federal government from taking any action to restrict Americans free speech rights.

The order ensures “that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

It also ensures “that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen” and “identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.”

Meta earlier this month ended its practice of censoring posts on Facebook, Instagram and Threads after CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden administration pressured the company to remove posts related to COVID-19, the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections – including suppressing the New York Post’s explosive story on Hunter Biden’s laptop – and other matters.

“We started building social media to give people a voice,” Zuckerberg said in announcing the decision. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.”

Twitter, now X, also removed posts under pressure from the Biden administration before Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk bought the social media platform in 2022.

Trump’s executive order also instructs the U.S. Attorney General to investigate past cases of government censorship.

“The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies, shall investigate the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken based on the findings of the report,” the order states.

​Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Trending

X