Energy
From Sippy Cups to Solar Panels: Why a Blanket Ban on Plastics Misses the Mark
From EnergyNow.ca
By Canada Powered by Women
Repeated attempts by the federal government to implement a sweeping ban on plastics don’t consider the crucial role plastics play in the lives of Canadians and energy transformation.
Plastic is in many products we need every day, including medical equipment, headphones, car seats, menstrual products and computers. For mothers enjoying summer with their kids — don’t forget sippy cups, running shoes and diapers (to name a few).
In Canada, as many as 70,000 plastic products are made every day. They are essential, whether we’re working, having fun or simply trying to go about our daily lives.
The chemistry and plastics sector is also the third largest manufacturing sector in Canada, employing more than 190,000 people and shipping more than $108 billion in products in 2022.
So, this fall when the Appeals Court revisits the federal government’s move that labelled many plastics as “toxic”, engaged women from across the country are going to be watching.
They’re watching because the use of plastic touches many areas of their personal lives and interests.
Plastic is a critical component in the energy transformation (which we know engaged women care a lot about) and it’s intricately connected to the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies. These are important considerations for our country’s broader energy policy and sustainability goals, and engaged women are paying attention because they’re not convinced Canada has energy policies that positively affect prosperity.
Engaged women in Canada have also told us they want a balanced approach on the environment, energy and economic prosperity. As a result, their understanding of policies is deepening, and they are focusing on long-term prosperity and affordability while striving for a well-rounded strategy when it comes to policymaking.
So how did we get here with the plastics issue, and what happens next?
The single-use plastic ban that started it all
In 2019, the federal government announced it would seek to ban single-use plastic items such as straws, cutlery, take out containers, stir sticks and plastic bags to reduce plastic waste.
The ban came into effect in 2022 after the federal government added all plastic manufactured items (PMIs) to a toxic substance list (a key step in allowing it to ban these items).
Waste management is a provincial responsibility, but the federal government is able to regulate substances for environmental protection if they are listed as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
In 2023, a federal court reviewed the legislation after complaints surfaced saying Ottawa failed to demonstrate enough scientific evidence to justify the sweeping regulations.
The court agreed, ruling that the federal government exceeded its authority by listing all PMIs as toxic, calling the move “unreasonable and unconstitutional”.
The federal government appealed the decision, and on June 25-26 this year, the Federal Appeals Court heard arguments for and against listing all PMIs as toxic.
A decision on the appeal is expected this fall, and the outcome of the ruling has many concerned about what future bans and other restrictive regulations and policies will mean for everyday Canadians.
How plastics restrictions could hurt Canadians
Christa Seaman, vice-president of the plastics division with the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, says further restrictions on using plastic will have serious ramifications.
“If we start to take away plastic packaging that’s keeping our food safe, for example, you’ll actually see increased cost to consumers because food is going to spoil before it gets to market or shipping is going to be more expensive because the packaging for the products are going to weigh more,” says Seaman.
Seaman also highlights restrictions on plastics could limit the availability of certain products that rely on plastic packaging or components, and Canadians may have reduced access to the variety of inexpensive goods we use today.
Plastics play a big role in low-carbon technology development
There are sustainable ways to keep plastics out of the environment and in the economy, Seaman says, particularly because of the key role they’re already playing in the proliferation of green technologies.
For example, batteries in electric vehicles (EVs) are heavier than in vehicles with internal combustion engines so plastics are being used to manufacture EVs.
“Plastics, being lightweight and durable, are key to keeping the weight of the vehicle down,” she says. “We have less wear and tear on our roads and we’re actually able to increase the driving range per charge, without compromising safety at all.”
Plastics also make renewable energy sources like wind and solar possible, Seaman says. They are a key component in solar panels, and blades of wind turbines are made with fibreglass and other plastic composite materials.
Rather than an outright ban on plastics, we’d be better off exploring how a circular economy — one that includes the appropriate use, reuse and recycling of plastics — can keep plastic waste out of the environment and create a more sustainable future.
Some provinces and territories have also initiated an important shift in responsibility by making producers of plastic products responsible for funding their collection and recycling, Seaman says.
“Provinces are setting the guidelines on achieving certain benchmarks and targets for recyclability, which will go back to how the products are designed,” she says. “The cheaper and easier it is to recycle, the less they’re going to have to spend on the recycling system in the end.”
Seaman says the industry goal is to focus on reduction first by making packaging smaller or thinner. Then the focus turns to reusing plastics, and once those options are exhausted the goal is to recycle.
What we need from policymakers
Listing all plastics as toxic, and then implementing bans around their use, is heavy-handed and misguided.
Seaman says a collaborative approach between policymakers and producers is what’s needed now, and policy should reflect what’s best for the public, the environment and the economy.
“We need all solutions to be on the table: your compostable, your biodegradable, your advanced recycling, your mechanical recycling.”
Seaman says the focus should be placed on outcome-based regulations and science.
“Let’s talk about the outcomes we’re all trying to achieve, because nobody wants to see plastics in the environment, in the waterways or in landfill. Let’s look at what targets need to be and find a way to get there together.”
From the Fraser Institute
By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari
According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”
And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.
So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.
But is that true?
Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.
Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.
Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.
However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.
Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.
So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.
Annika Segelhorst
Junior Economist
Elmira Aliakbari
From Resource Works
A strategic gateway to the world
Tucked into the north coast of B.C. is the deepest natural harbour in North America and the port with the shortest travel times to Asia.
With growing capacity for exports including agricultural products, lumber, plastic pellets, propane and butane, it’s no wonder the Port of Prince Rupert often comes up as a potential new global gateway for oil from Alberta, said CEO Shaun Stevenson.
Thanks to its location and natural advantages, the port can efficiently move a wide range of commodities, he said.
That could include oil, if not for the federal tanker ban in northern B.C.’s coastal waters.
“Notwithstanding the moratorium that was put in place, when you look at the attributes of the Port of Prince Rupert, there’s arguably no safer place in Canada to do it,” Stevenson said.
“I think that speaks to the need to build trust and confidence that it can be done safely, with protection of environmental risks. You can’t talk about the economic opportunity before you address safety and environmental protection.”
Safe transit at Prince Rupert
About a 16-hour drive from Vancouver, the Port of Prince Rupert’s terminals are one to two sailing days closer to Asia than other West Coast ports.
The entrance to the inner harbour is wider than the length of three Canadian football fields.
The water is 35 metres deep — about the height of a 10-storey building — compared to 22 metres at Los Angeles and 16 metres at Seattle.
Shipmasters spend two hours navigating into the port with local pilot guides, compared to four hours at Vancouver and eight at Seattle.
“We’ve got wide open, very simple shipping lanes. It’s not moving through complex navigational channels into the site,” Stevenson said.
A port on the rise
The Prince Rupert Port Authority says it has entered a new era of expansion, strengthening Canada’s economic security.
The port estimates it anchors about $60 billion of Canada’s annual global trade today. Even without adding oil exports, Stevenson said that figure could grow to $100 billion.
“We need better access to the huge and growing Asian market,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
“Prince Rupert seems purpose-built for that.”
Roughly $3 billion in new infrastructure is already taking shape, including the $750 million rail-to-container CANXPORT transloading complex for bulk commodities like specialty agricultural products, lumber and plastic pellets.
Canadian propane goes global
A centrepiece of new development is the $1.35-billion Ridley Energy Export Facility — the port’s third propane terminal since 2019.
“Prince Rupert is already emerging as a globally significant gateway for propane exports to Asia,” Exner-Pirot said.
Thanks to shipments from Prince Rupert, Canadian propane – primarily from Alberta – has gone global, no longer confined to U.S. markets.
More than 45 per cent of Canada’s propane exports now reach destinations outside the United States, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.
“Twenty-five per cent of Japan’s propane imports come through Prince Rupert, and just shy of 15 per cent of Korea’s imports. It’s created a lift on every barrel produced in Western Canada,” Stevenson said.
“When we look at natural gas liquids, propane and butane, we think there’s an opportunity for Canada via Prince Rupert becoming the trading benchmark for the Asia-Pacific region.”
That would give Canadian production an enduring competitive advantage when serving key markets in Asia, he said.
Deep connection to Alberta
The Port of Prince Rupert has been a key export hub for Alberta commodities for more than four decades.
Through the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, the province invested $134 million — roughly half the total cost — to build the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal, which opened in 1985.
The largest grain terminal on the West Coast, it primarily handles wheat, barley, and canola from the prairies.
Today, the connection to Alberta remains strong.
In 2022, $3.8 billion worth of Alberta exports — mainly propane, agricultural products and wood pulp — were shipped through the Port of Prince Rupert, according to the province’s Ministry of Transportation and Economic Corridors.
In 2024, Alberta awarded a $250,000 grant to the Prince Rupert Port Authority to lead discussions on expanding transportation links with the province’s Industrial Heartland region near Edmonton.
Handling some of the world’s biggest vessels
The Port of Prince Rupert could safely handle oil tankers, including Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs), Stevenson said.
“We would have the capacity both in water depth and access and egress to the port that could handle Aframax, Suezmax and even VLCCs,” he said.
“We don’t have terminal capacity to handle oil at this point, but there’s certainly terminal capacities within the port complex that could be either expanded or diversified in their capability.”
Market access lessons from TMX
Like propane, Canada’s oil exports have gained traction in Asia, thanks to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline and the Westridge Marine Terminal near Vancouver — about 1,600 kilometres south of Prince Rupert, where there is no oil tanker ban.
The Trans Mountain expansion project included the largest expansion of ocean oil spill response in Canadian history, doubling capacity of the West Coast Marine Response Corporation.
The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) reports that Canadian oil exports to Asia more than tripled after the expanded pipeline and terminal went into service in May 2024.
As a result, the price for Canadian oil has gone up.
The gap between Western Canadian Select (WCS) and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) has narrowed to about $12 per barrel this year, compared to $19 per barrel in 2023, according to GLJ Petroleum Consultants.
Each additional dollar earned per barrel adds about $280 million in annual government royalties and tax revenues, according to economist Peter Tertzakian.
The road ahead
There are likely several potential sites for a new West Coast oil terminal, Stevenson said.
“A pipeline is going to find its way to tidewater based upon the safest and most efficient route,” he said.
“The terminal part is relatively straightforward, whether it’s in Prince Rupert or somewhere else.”
Under Canada’s Marine Act, the Port of Prince Rupert’s mandate is to enable trade, Stevenson said.
“If Canada’s trade objectives include moving oil off the West Coast, we’re here to enable it, presuming that the project has a mandate,” he said.
“If we see the basis of a project like this, we would ensure that it’s done to the best possible standard.”
This article originally appeared in Canadian Energy Centre
Resource Works News
Wayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
Western Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
Surgery Denied. Death Approved.
Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
-
Bruce Dowbiggin24 hours ago
Wayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
-
espionage13 hours ago
Western Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
-
Focal Points4 hours ago
Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
-
Opinion22 hours agoThe day the ‘King of rock ‘n’ roll saved the Arizona memorial
-
Agriculture23 hours agoCanada’s air quality among the best in the world
-
Business11 hours agoCanada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’
-
Health2 hours agoThe Data That Doesn’t Exist
-
Economy12 hours agoAffordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada