Connect with us

Business

Ottawa’s emissions cap another headache for consumers and business

Published

6 minute read

From Resource Works

Ottawa’s emissions cap for oil and gas aims to cut emissions but risks raising costs for consumers and disrupting industry stability.

Ottawa has brought down a new emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, with a mandate to reduce emissions by 35 percent from 2019 levels by 2030 to support the federal government’s climate targets. While the federal government is celebrating the cap as a big step towards a more sustainable future, it is going to make life harder for consumers and businesses alike.

This cap is coming in at a time when the oil sector is finally gaining greater stability due to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), and the mandate would undermine that progress and press greater costs upon households and industries that are already adjusting to high inflation and uncertainty in world markets.

Now that TMX is operational, Canada’s oil producers have grown their access to international markets, most importantly in Asia and the West Coast of the United States. Much-needed price stability now exists for Western Canadian Select (WCS), cutting the discount against the U.S. West Texas Intermediate benchmark, enabling Canadian oil to compete more effectively.

Newfound stability means that Canadian consumers and businesses have benefited from slightly lower prices, and that industry has grown less dependent on a more limited domestic demand. However, Ottawa’s emissions cap does threaten this new balance, and the sector now has to deal with compliance costs that could be passed down to consumers.

In order to meet the cap’s targets, Canadian oil producers must heavily invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which is costly but essential. Major CCS projects include Shell’s Quest and the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, both of which are already operational.

The Pathways Alliance is a coalition of six major oil sands companies and is preparing to invest in one of the world’s largest networks for carbon storage. These efforts are crucial for reducing emissions, despite requiring vast amounts of capital.

Those in the industry are worrying that the emissions cap will push resources away from production and, instead, towards compliance, adding costs that will be borne by fuel prices and other consumer products.

Ottawa has portrayed the cap as an essential measure for meeting the federal government’s climate goals, with Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson labeling it “technically achievable.” Nonetheless, industry players argue that the timeline does not align with the practicalities of scaling CCS and other strategies aimed at decarbonizing.

Strathcona Resources executive chairman Adam Waterous pointed out the “stroke-of-the-pen” risk, in which shifting political landscapes imperil ongoing investments in carbon capture. Numerous oil producers feel that without certainty in carbon price stability, Ottawa’s cap will result in an unstable business environment that will push investment away from production.

Business leaders do not share the federal government’s optimism about the cap and see it as a one-sided approach that fails to reckon with market realities. The Pathways Alliance, which includes companies like Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural Resources, has been frustrated in its multiple attempts to get federal support to fund its $16.5-billion CCS project.

Rather than imposing these new limits, energy industry advocates argue that the government should provide targeted incentives like “carbon contracts for difference” (CCfDs), which help to stabilize carbon credit prices and reduce financial risk among investors. These measures would enable the energy sector to decarbonize without putting a greater burden on consumers.

The cap’s timing also raises concerns about the Canada-U.S. relationship. Canada has traditionally been a stable supplier of energy and helps to bolster U.S. energy security. However, as the U.S. increases its reliance on Canadian oil, the cap could disrupt this trade relationship. Lowered production levels would leave the economies of both the U.S. and Canada vulnerable, potentially disrupting energy prices and supply stability.

For households across Canada, the emissions cap could mean further financial strain. The higher costs of compliance passed to oil producers will mean higher prices at the pump and more expensive heating costs at a time when Canadian consumers are already struggling financially.

Businesses will also face increasing operating costs, which will be passed down to consumers via more expensive goods and services. Furthermore, higher costs and reduced production will erode Canada’s competitive advantage in the global energy market, slowing economic growth and risking job losses in the energy sector.

So, while Ottawa can laud its emissions cap as a necessary action on the climate, the implications for consumers and businesses are tremendous. Working with industry to find pragmatic, collaborative solutions is how Ottawa can avoid creating more financial burdens for Canadians.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Liberals to increase CBC funding to nearly $2 billion per year

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Department of Canadian Heritage promised funding to offset the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s nearly 10 percent drop in ad revenue last year despite an audience share of 1.7 percent, meaning over 98 percent of the country is not watching the network.

The Liberal government has promised to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to compensate CBC-TV for ads that the network cannot sell.

According to information released January 20 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Liberal-run Department of Canadian Heritage will give CBC millions more, bringing the network’s total parliamentary grant near $2 billion a year.

“The CBC has been grappling with a range of financial pressures that are challenging its ability to maintain programming and service levels,” Liberals argued, adding that their department will be “providing additional funding to make it less reliant on private advertising with a goal of eliminating advertising during news and other public affairs shows.”

“The CBC is a pillar of Canada’s creative economy, a key provider of programming made by and for Canadians and a significant source of trusted news and information,” Liberals claimed.

“This government is committed to ensuring the sustainability of the CBC so that it can continue to create public value and adapt to the needs and expectations of Canadians,” the department continued.

The increased government subsidies come after an October report found that CBC’s advertising revenue dropped nearly 10 percent last year.

Furthermore, CBC’s own quarterly report found that its network audience share is only 1.7%, meaning more than 98% of Canadians are not watching CBC.

However, Liberals have chosen to ignore the fact that Canadians are not watching CBC, instead spending millions of dollars to prop up the failing outlet.

Beginning in 2019, Parliament changed the Income Tax Act to give yearly rebates of 25 percent for each news employee in cabinet-approved media outlets earning up to $55,000 a year to a maximum of $13,750.

Last November, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau again announced increased payouts for legacy media outlets that coincide with the leadup to the 2025 election. The subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years.

That amount to the CBC is in addition to massive media payouts that already make up roughly 70 percent of its operating budget and total more than $1 billion annually.

However, many have pointed out that the obscene amount of money thrown at CBC by Liberals is a ploy to buy the outlet’s loyalty.

Furthermore, in October, Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge’s department admitted that federally funded media outlets buy “social cohesion.”

Additionally, in September, House leader Karina Gould directed mainstream media reporters to “scrutinize” Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, who has repeatedly condemned government-funded media as an arm of the Liberals.

Gould’s comments were in reference to Poilievre’s promise to defund the CBC if elected prime minister. Poilievre is a longtime critic of government-funded media, especially the CBC.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump promises new era of government efficiency with DOGE

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Group files suit over DOGE secrecy on Trump’s first day

President Donald Trump promised Americans that their federal government would operate more efficiently with the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency.

“My administration will establish the brand new Department of Government Efficiency,” the 47th president said to applause from Republicans.

Trump’s remarks on DOGE came the same day as a nonprofit group joined a union to file suit over the outside agency, alleging its secret meetings violate federal law.

The complaint, filed by Public Citizen and the American Federation of Government Employees, alleges DOGE violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act because “members do not have a fair balance of viewpoints, meetings are held in secret and without public notice and records and work product are not available to the public.”

“AFGE will not stand idly by as a secretive group of ultra-wealthy individuals with major conflicts of interest attempt to deregulate themselves and give their own companies sweetheart government contracts while firing civil servants and dismantling the institutions designed to serve the American people,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement. “This fight is about fairness, accountability, and the integrity of our government.”

Trump spoke about DOGE during his inauguration after making bold promises for the department after winning the 2024 election.

Trump picked Tesla CEO Elon Musk and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy to lead DOGE. Trump said the new group will pave the way for his administration to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulation, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.”

Both Musk and Ramaswamy attended Trump’s inauguration Monday. The two men previously outlined their plans for DOGE, which includes reducing regulations that would lead to mass layoffs of federal employees.

“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” Musk and Ramaswamy wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in November. “DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions.”

AFGE, which represents more than 800,000 workers in nearly every federal agency, had previously denounced DOGE. Kelley said it will hollow out the federal government and its workforce.

“By their very nature, cuts of this size also would require slashing spending on our military, homeland security, federal law enforcement, and virtually every aspect of our government operations,” he said. “This kind of financial pressure would lead to painful, widespread reductions in services that will affect Americans from every walk of life.”

Trump has promised to cut “hundreds of billions” in federal spending in 2025 through the reconciliation process. DOGE co-leader Musk initially suggested DOGE could cut $2 trillion in spending. Musk more recently said the group will aim for $2 trillion, but likely come up with half that amount.

Congress controls the purse strings for discretionary spending, which totaled about $1.7 trillion in 2023. Congress generally allocates about half of its discretionary spending to the U.S. Department of Defense.

“The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited,” Musk and Ramaswamy wrote. “Employees whose positions are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and DOGE’s goal is to help support their transition into the private sector. The president can use existing laws to give them incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.”

Congress has run a deficit every year since 2001. In the past 50 years, the federal government has ended with a fiscal year-end budget surplus four times, most recently in 2001.

Last week, the federal government reported net costs of $7.4 trillion in fiscal year 2024, but it couldn’t fully account for its spending. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, which is Congress’s research arm, said that the federal government must address “serious deficiencies” in federal financial management and correct course on its “unsustainable” long-term fiscal path.

Continue Reading

Trending

X