Energy
Welcome to “Oil & Gas Silencing” Bill C-59: Where Trudeau’s Science Court Rules, Not Real People With Real Science
From EnergyNow.ca
By Jim Warren
Follow those who seek the truth. Run from the man who says he’s found it.
-Václav Havel, first president of Czechoslovakia after the 1989 Velvet Revolution.
In addition to its threat to the right of free expression, Bill C-59, stands as a threat to the free spirit of inquiry that sustains modern science. Many of the efforts undertaken today to reduce the environmental footprint of the gas and petroleum industries are based on scientific research conducted by professionals whose efforts are guided by a set of well-established philosophical and methodological principles. The efforts of climate change scientists who attempt to more accurately assess the causes, pace and intensity of anthropogenic global warming operate under similar guidelines.
Science regulates adherence to its philosophical and methodological standards through a system whereby research methods and the findings of research are published and reviewed by panels of experienced practitioners in its various disciplines – the famous scientific peer review process. In this way the quality of findings can be assessed. Findings that are based on flawed methodology can be outright rejected or researchers can be asked to adjust their methods and try again. Even if a statistical study or experiment has made it through peer review once, ongoing efforts are made to check the work against new information and experiments are subjected to replication efforts.
Rejections of flawed research can happen quickly, but, unfortunately, can sometimes take years. For example, it took the leading medical journal, The Lancet, 12 years to debunk a fraudulent 1998 study it had published linking vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) to colitis which was in turn linked to autism.
Bill C-59 proposes to establish a government appointed agency with the capacity to launch prosecutions which will presumably be adjudicated by a quasi-judicial panel or tribunal with the ability to impose jaw-dropping penalties in the millions. The tribunal will assess claims made by conventional energy companies about improvements regarding things such as emissions levels. Judgments will similarly be made regarding the claims of journalists and individuals who publish the claims of those companies. This is a process that will lead to dividing the findings of science into a government approved body of work and heretical unapproved science.
The Soviet Union adopted the practice of recognizing only politically-correct government-approved science. One of the many reasons Soviet agriculture was so backward was because the approved method for improving crop genetics to develop varieties with greater tolerance to drought and early frosts was based on the “Party-approved” theory, Lamarckism. This was the idea that a trait that developed due to use or disuse during an organism’s lifetime could be transmitted to its offspring. If you grew a plant during a drought, its offspring would be drought tolerant.
Prosecutions under the Bill C-59 legislation will place a reverse onus condition on the accused. Those charged will not be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They will be required to prove what they said was true.
Willy Pickton and Paul Bernardo obtained the benefit of a right not available under Bill C-59. Those two outstanding citizens were presumed innocent until being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What comes next, reviving the evidentiary tests used in medieval witchcraft trials?
There is a mismatch between the philosophy of science and a quasi-judicial process that demands true or false certainty for scientific claims. The philosopher Karl Popper famously argued that the findings of scientific investigation can never be assumed to represent some sort of absolute immutable truth, in part because we can never know the future with absolute certainty. We are blind to whether new, not yet imagined, developments will arise in the future that falsify a scientific claim made today. According to Popper, researchers can refute or falsify a pre-existing claim but cannot claim that a new finding is absolutely true now and forever.
New research results always have a conditional status. Even after they have survived one or more tests and efforts to replicate their experimental results, they remain valid only until such a time as the next attempt proves them incorrect. This is why one of the principal tasks of good science is to critically assess the theories and findings of what is sometimes erroneously referred to as “decided science.” We often hear the claim that some science is so widely accepted it can be considered decided. The claim is false though it is made by people who should know better like the celebrity scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson. He claims the science on climate change is decided science.
Claiming that many or most scientists believe in the science around climate change does not make it correct. First of all which parts of climate science do they believe? It is a large and complex field with many streams of investigation. Furthermore, that huge body of work itself includes numerous contradictory research findings.
Publication and peer review are the principal means that allow scientific knowledge to change and hopefully improve over time. That is why the testing of theories and research findings is an ongoing, potentially never-ending scientific process. Why not allow the process to unfold as usual rather than giving the government the authority to own the unvarnished scientific “truth?”
Einstein shared many of Popper’s views. And he also had a few things to say about so-called “decided science.” The Nazis were always uncomfortable with the fact that although Einstein was German-born he was also a Jew. They were embarrassed that Einstein’s scientific achievements were overshadowing the work of “Aryan” scientists. In 1931, a group of scientists sympathetic to the Nazis published the book, 100 Authors against Einstein. Einstein was not impressed with the fact they had found so many critics. He had several criticisms of the book including his assertion that science is not done by taking a poll.
Clearly it would not be possible to state you can prove your scientific claim is true as a defense in climate court and remain consistent with Popper and his fundamental principles of science. All you can do is show that you followed a suitable methodology and logically assessed the evidence you found. But what assurance do we have the Trudeau court of science will be satisfied with this sort of assertion. A lot will hang on who the Liberals appoint to the bench.
Another reason reviewing the work of other researchers is considered critical to the scientific process is because even when studies and experiments are conducted with the utmost integrity they can generate erroneous findings. People are fallible, a decimal point winds up in the wrong place; lab equipment fails, and so on. And, unfortunately, as is the case in many fields of human endeavor, there are fraudsters and incompetents working in science. Nonetheless, while it may be imperfect in many ways, the process of scientific inquiry is the best system we have yet devised for coming as close to approximating objective truth as is possible.
In these enlightened days, when honest errors are made, we expect them to be corrected. For the past two centuries the task of reviewing and correcting scientific errors has been done by the scientific community. There are exceptions. There are authoritarian states like the former Soviet Union that have “official science” and “illegal science.” It goes back to Galileo and the Inquisition.
Under the peer review process developed by scientists, lab-coated lynch mobs are not dispatched to hang, draw and quarter scrupulous scientists whose results are rejected. Lying and cheating are another matter entirely and sanctions are imposed on those caught doing it. That is why even Dr. Fauci is said to be looking over his shoulder these days.
It hardly serves the public good to stifle the spirit of free scientific inquiry. If scientists become worried that conducting an experiment and publishing the findings could result in large fines and possible imprisonment if their results are subsequently falsified, science as we know it would cease. Conceivably, every physicist prior to Einstein had imperfect ideas about light and gravity. They weren’t rounded up and fined or imprisoned after Einstein came up with specific and general relativity. If any of Einstein’s scientific work is one day found wanting, the Nobel Prize committee won’t ask for the return of his prize.
We might reasonably expect a similar reaction from publishers and journalists who currently inform the public about developments in science. If they can be punished because the scientific developments they report are later claimed to be in error or have simply been improved upon, they are apt to quit telling the public about new science. Why assume the risk? This would no doubt be a particularly worrisome possibility if the new science involved innovations in petroleum production that are found to reduce emissions.
There is no single “accepted,” version of our climate future claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – only a pile of speculations and probabilities based on hopefully accurate climate models and many assumptions about social and economic conditions in the future. And, as mentioned previously, claiming anything is “decided science” is ridiculous – science by definition is never fully decided, it is an ongoing process that does not presume to arrive at final absolute truths.
What if one of the predictions about the pace of climate change and its impacts made by the IPCC, or journalists from the alarmist camp is proven incorrect, shouldn’t the same rules apply? Should they not be subject to prosecution by the science inquisition? That’s not likely going to happen. It appears the intention of the Trudeau-Angus rules is that the only science subject to punishment will be the science that produces results they don’t like.
Who decides?
It is unclear exactly who will be passing judgment in the Trudeau court of science. Will Charlie Angus be appointed to the bench? Will experts in the philosophy and methodology of science be appointed to the review tribunal?
Or will the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion guide appointments? Sure, that will fix everything. Science could be adjudicated by a PhD in gender studies who claims science was designed by the patriarchy, and therefore oppresses women and should be replaced by science as understood by oppressed identity groups. Justin will love it.
Let’s hope the Trudeau science court will include some people with legal backgrounds who believe in due process under the law. Maybe they could come up with a workaround for the reverse onus rules under Bill C-59.
Some of us find it quite difficult to be optimistic about a science court. There is concern that in the woke and virtuous world inhabited by Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault the “truth” about the science of climate change has been decided and can be found on the CBC and Greenpeace websites. Those who beg to differ can tell it to the judge.
Energy
What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?
From Resource Works
Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.
Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?
It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.
That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.
The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.
I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.
Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?
I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.
To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.
Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.
Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?
It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.
But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.
The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.
Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?
I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.
That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.
I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.
Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?
Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.
I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.
We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.
It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.
Energy
What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?
From EnergyNow.ca
By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow
The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.
Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.
Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?
Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built
Economic and Job Creation
The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.
Energy Security
By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.
Environmental Safety
Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.
Regulatory Oversight
The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.
Political Reasons for Cancellation
Environmental Activism
The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.
Obama’s Cancellation
President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.
Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation
President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.
Political Symbolism
For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.
Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?
Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.
It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.
Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.
That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.
-
Business2 days ago
Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Alberta1 day ago
Province considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
John Stossel1 day ago
Green Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Alberta1 day ago
Early Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta
-
Business2 days ago
From ‘brilliant’ to ‘aghast’: Reactions to RFK Jr.’s nomination for HHS secretary run the gamut
-
MAiD2 days ago
Over 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Addictions1 day ago
BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies