Oil and gas.
Energy
Energy & the Environment
The three letter curse words.
Many are calling for the end of oil and gas while promoting the slogan “Build Back Better”.
The slogan which originated from the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in response to Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, has now morphed into the slogan for all things green and socially just.
The Liberal Party of Canada’s website outlines their plan for “Protecting our Environment and Moving Our Economy Forward” as follows:
-
Fighting and Preparing for Climate Change
-
Making Communities Cleaner, More Efficient, and More Affordable
-
Protecting Canada’s Natural Legacy
The document lays out a commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, plant two billion trees in ten years, provide interest-free loans for retrofits, build vehicle charging stations, set up a camping travel bursary and ban single-use plastics.
So what is the problem with the Liberals environmental plan? Simple. It lacks depth, neglects financial implications and worst of all, its not rooted in reality.
Net-Zero Emissions by 2050
Making a commitment to hit this target through “legally binding” targets ignores the reality that we live in.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has indicated that emissions-reductions cannot be met unless the carbon tax is drastically increased.
While it may be possible to tax the country into a state of zero emissions, this would significantly cripple the economy, destroy jobs and ruin lives. This is not acceptable.
What should the government do?
Up to the mid-late 1800s, wood was the primary source of energy for developed nations.
What changed from that point to now? Innovation.
Government needs to remove red tape, repeal poor policy, end harmful taxation and allow the free market to pursue new technologies.
How can we be sure that this will work?
The free market is driven to create returns for shareholders. If there is an opportunity to create profits through new technology, free markets will find a way to capitalize.
In order to truly implement policies that improve our environment, we need to look beyond our borders and bring leading Canadian technologies to foreign countries.
Canada is a significant coal exporter. Coal, when burned, is a much higher polluter than other non-renewable resources such as natural gas and hydrogen. The government should work with foreign countries to promote the use of natural gas as a substitute.
Retrofit Buildings
Plans to provide free energy audits, interest-free retrofit loans and grants for zero-emissions homes are the main talking points of the Liberal retrofit plan.
First off, nothing supplied by the government is free. All government expenses are bankrolled by taxpayers.
In the midst of reduced or eliminated incomes due to the pandemic, the likelihood of home-owners or landlords being willing to take on debt to retrofit homes or office buildings is going to be limited for the foreseeable future.
Similarly, the costs associated with building a zero-emission home will not be offset with a $5,000 grant as proposed in the Liberal plan.
What should the government do?
Canada is already home to stringent building regulations. Regulations that carry significant costs.
In order to encourage further “green” building, the market needs access to more affordable products.
The government could accomplish this through the reduction of red tape, and the promotion of trade deals that allow for foreign firms to bring their goods and technology to Canada.
Competition and innovation ultimately drive down consumer costs and will always be more effective and efficient than government subsidies.
Charging Stations
Recently, the federal government announced that it will “invest” $295 million to help Ford Canada upgrade its Oakville assembly plant to begin making electric vehicles.
With the increased manufacturing of electric cars, comes a requirement for charging stations.
According to a 2015 US Department of Energy study, costs for single port Level 1 stations range from $300-$4,500. For DC fast charging stations, $14,000-$91,000.
Level 1 stations add 6 miles of range per hour @ 1.9kW. DC fast charging stations add 90 miles per 20 minutes @ 90kW.
Before taxpayer funds are thrown at green projects, a complete analysis of the life-cycle costs should be a requirement. This will ensure that emissions are truly lower and that taxpayers are receiving economic value for their tax dollars.
What should the government do?
Government subsidies that prop up an industry or product are inevitably harmful to consumers. These subsidies hide costs that the free market would ultimately choose not to absorb.
Instead, government should encourage vehicle manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, regardless of the fuel system used to power the vehicle.
This could be done through the existing Scientific Research & Experimental Development Tax Incentive Program. The specific objective of the project should be to offset the costs of wages paid to research and development staff who are engaged in this direct work.
Beyond the direct goal of improving vehicle emissions, this program would create more opportunities for high-paying jobs within the tech sector which would further help to diversify the Canadian economy.
Trees and Camping Travel Bursary
The tree planting program involves two billion trees, ten years, 3,500 seasonal jobs and an overall $3 billion effort to deploy natural climate solutions.
If there is a job that meets pandemic guidelines, planting trees in the great outdoors qualifies.
The camping bursary was to provide a $2,000 grant to help families go camping in Canada’s national parks. No grants have been provided to date.
Additionally, the Learn to Camp program was to be expanded so that every Canadian child could learn how to camp by the time they reached grade eight.
What should the government do?
The WE scandal resulted in a missed opportunity to create job opportunities for post-secondary students. This can be remedied by expanding the Canada Summer Jobs program in advance of the 2021 tree planting season.
If there is little or no interest in the tree planting program for 2021, it should be abandoned entirely. Instead, government should support private sector companies who are consistently engaging in tree planting projects and other environmental reclamation projects.
Boutique tax credits and other one-off government programs typically result in creating winners and losers. As such, the camping bursary program should be cancelled.
Instead, and in conjunction with a full tax code review, the government could find efficiencies within the tax system that would translate into real results for Canadians.
Single-Use Plastics Ban
A recent announcement to ban single-use plastics, regulations to be finalized in late 2021, seeks to fulfill a long running Liberal election promise.
The ban will remove plastic grocery bags, straws, stir sticks, six pack rings, cutlery and takeout containers.
At a time where the hospitality industry is reeling from the impacts of the pandemic, this will be another difficult adjustment for this industry.
Smaller Alberta plastic manufactures have expressed concern with the new policy. Although single-use plastics account for a small portion of the plastics market, the costs associated with re-tooling a manufacturing facility can be quite high.
What should the government do?
Instead of virtue-signalling, the government should focus on addressing the issue of plastic recycling. The slogan of reduce, reuse and recycle can be traced back to the 1970s. Why hasn’t it caught on as hoped? Simply put, there is no money in plastic recycling.
Government should focus resources instead to projects that find viable solutions for plastic recycling. One such project is the development of plastic-bitumen composite roads.
Adding carbon capture technology to the plastic processing and bitumen mixing process would allow for road materials to be produced in an environmentally conscious manner.
Plastic-bitumen composite roads could result in better quality roadways as they are less water absorbent. Due to the temperature swings in Canada, this could save significant amounts of money otherwise spent on maintenance.
Final Thoughts
Canadians across the country have a strong desire to protect and preserve our environment for our children and future generations.
Environmental policies need to be more than exercises in virtue-signalling.
Government needs to understand the climate that we live in, the size of our country and the economic implications of the decisions being made.
Government subsidies are unacceptable. Subsidies result in expensive infrastructure projects and bloated consumer costs. If we need a reminder of this we only have to look at the recent failing of the Ontario green energy initiative.
Government should focus on reducing red tape, encouraging competition and providing targeted tax credits. Policy that focus on tax credits require free market enterprises to undergo the leg work to get new technology to a state where it can be capitalized on. This allows the free market to determine what is viable and how to achieve capitalization in the most efficient manner.
Lastly, we need capitalize on revenues from our oil and gas sector in order to further technological advances. Passing legislation to end emissions, create a zero-plastic waste economy or any other lofty agenda neglects the real world implications of these decisions. These policies do not take into consideration the resources required to accomplish these goals. Additionally, many families are being left behind as a result of these policy decisions.
We can protect our environment through innovation. In making policy decisions, government must not take better care of the environment than the residents who call it home.
https://www.jaredpilon.com/
From the YouTube channel of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith
Members of the media join Premier Danielle Smith for a round table on January 21, 2025.
From The Center Square
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday night declaring a national energy emergency.
Trump announced the order earlier in the day during his Inauguration Speech.
“We will drill baby drill,” Trump said. “We will bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the top, and export American energy all over the world. We will be a rich nation again and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it.”
The order states that high energy prices are an “active threat to the American people.”
“The policies of the previous administration have driven our Nation into a national emergency, where a precariously inadequate and intermittent energy supply, and an increasingly unreliable grid, require swift and decisive action,” the order said. “In light of these findings, I hereby declare a national emergency.”
To solve high prices and remedy the “numerous problems” with America’s energy infrastructure, the order stated that the delivery of energy infrastructure must be “expedited” and the nation’s energy supply facilitated “to the fullest extent possible.”
This was one of many executive orders the president signed on his first day in office.
In another order signed Monday night, Trump declared it was time to unleash American energy.
“In recent years, burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations have impeded the development of these resources, limited the generation of reliable and affordable electricity, reduced job creation, and inflicted high energy costs upon our citizens,” the order said. “It is thus in the national interest to unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.”
All this will be done through encouraging energy exploration, the elimination the electric vehicle mandates, and safeguarding “the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances.”
The order promises these measures will “restore American prosperity,” “establish our position as the leading producer,” and “protect the United States’s economic and national security and military preparedness.”
In an earlier signing of executive orders in front of a crowd of supporters at the Capital One Arena, Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accords.
Elyse Apel is an apprentice reporter with The Center Square, covering Georgia and North Carolina. She is a 2024 graduate of Hillsdale College.
Addictions2 days ago
Nanaimo syringe stabbing reignites calls for involuntary care
Dan McTeague3 days ago
Mark Carney would be bad for Canada
Business3 days ago
ESG Is Collapsing And Net Zero Is Going With It
Censorship Industrial Complex3 days ago
Mark Zuckerberg Tells Joe Rogan That Biden Admin Would ‘Scream’ And ‘Curse’ At Meta Employees To Censor ‘True’ Content
-
Catherine Herridge2 days agoReturn of the Diet Coke Button
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoWEF Davos 2025: Attendees at annual meeting wrestling for control of information
-
Business1 day agoFreeland and Carney owe Canadians clear answer on carbon taxes
-
Business1 day agoLiberals to increase CBC funding to nearly $2 billion per year
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoThe Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci
-
Business1 day ago
Carney says as PM he would replace the Carbon Tax with something ‘more effective’
-
Daily Caller1 day agoBiden Pardons His Brother Jim And Other Family Members Just Moments Before Trump’s Swearing-In
-
Business1 day agoUK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms