Energy
There is nothing green about the ‘green’ agenda
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/tvrd-mxm-green-energy-wind-solar-renewable-image-2025-02-09.jpg)
Quick Hit:
RealClearEnergy contributor Steve Milloy argues that the environmental left has been disingenuous about the true costs of so-called green energy. He exposes the environmental and human toll of electric vehicles, solar, and wind power, calling the movement’s claims “Orwellian.”
Key Details:
-
Milloy criticizes Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm for claiming President Trump is helping China by cutting subsidies for the green economy.
-
He highlights the use of child labor and environmental destruction in mining for electric vehicle (EV) components like lithium and nickel.
-
He challenges the credibility of climate activists, pointing out decades of failed predictions and misleading rhetoric.
Diving Deeper:
Now that Democrats no longer control the federal government, Steve Milloy argues that climate activists are scrambling to rebrand their agenda to appeal to conservatives. In a recent op-ed for RealClearEnergy, Milloy calls out Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm for claiming that Trump’s rollback of green energy subsidies is a win for Communist China. Milloy translates this as frustration from the left over the end of “the flow of billions of taxpayers’ dollars to subsidize electric vehicles that nobody wants and only the well-off can afford.”
According to Milloy, the so-called green agenda is anything but environmentally friendly. “If the climate movement was truly sincere and intellectually honest in its desire to stop actions contributing to global environmental degradation, it would stand fast against solar panels and electric vehicles,” he writes. He details the horrific conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where children mine cobalt for lithium-ion batteries with their bare hands, breathing in toxic dust while contaminating their own water supply. Meanwhile, he says, activists remain “blithely unaware or unconcerned in the comfort of their own homes.”
The mining of nickel, another key EV battery component, also devastates the environment. Milloy describes Indonesia’s nickel refining operations, where thick brown smog chokes the air, and chemicals leach into groundwater. “Whatever else climate activists may try to tell us, there is nothing green going on here,” he asserts.
In Brazil, an aluminum refinery linked to Ford’s now-canceled all-electric F-150 Lightning has been accused of poisoning local communities with toxic chemicals. Milloy highlights a lawsuit alleging that heavy metal contamination has caused cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders. Meanwhile, a separate Brazilian EV factory was recently shut down due to “slavery”-like working conditions. “How is that a green virtue?” Milloy asks.
The environmental destruction doesn’t stop with EVs. “Solar energy, long the prize pig of the climate crowd, isn’t green either,” Milloy writes, citing studies showing that clearing forests for solar farms actually increases carbon emissions. Wind power, he notes, is no better, with massive wind farms killing wildlife and disrupting ecosystems both on land and offshore.
Milloy argues that the climate movement has long relied on fear-mongering and deception. “In 1970, they assured us that human activity would cause an ice age by the 21st century,” he recalls. Predictions of global famine, acid rain catastrophes, and rising sea levels have all failed to materialize. He points to Al Gore’s 2008 claim that the North Pole would be ice-free within five years and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s 2009 declaration that the world had “fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe.” “Spoiler alert: We’re still here and thriving,” Milloy quips.
Ultimately, he says, there is no such thing as “clean” or “dirty” energy—only trade-offs and solutions. With energy costs already high, Milloy argues that reliable fossil fuels remain essential. “Word sophistry from our friends on the left won’t change that,” he concludes.
Energy
LATE TO THE PARTY: Liberal Resource Minister Minister Suddenly Discovers Canada Needs East-West Pipeline
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/tvrd-en-liberal-natural-resources-minister-jonathan-wilkinson-image-2025-02-10.jpg)
From Energy Now
By Jim Warren
On Thursday, February 6 federal energy and natural resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told reporters about a brilliant idea he’d come up with. He said Canada should think about building an east-west oil pipeline. He claimed doing so could provide Ontario, Quebec and parts further east greater security of supply.
Furthermore, such a pipeline would eliminate the need to buy tanker loads of oil from places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. And what’s more it could provide us with the opportunity to export Canadian oil to countries other than the US.
Talk about being late to the party. It’s as though the Energy East project never made it onto the national agenda.
Wilkinson told reporters how a pipeline like Enbridge’s Line 5 is vulnerable to shut down by US authorities. Line 5 carries oil from the prairies through the northern US Midwest before delivering it to the refinery and petrochemicals facilities at Sarnia, Ontario.
This is not breaking news. The Liberals have been well aware of the threat for years. Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer waged a well-publicized multi-year campaign to have Line 5 shut down.
According to a CBC report, Wilkinson said, “successive Canadian governments never really gave it much thought that a lot of the energy the country needs to power its economy flows through the U.S.”
That’s a stretch. He apparently doesn’t consider the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan to be Canadian governments. The real problem is Ottawa wasn’t listening when premiers Notley, Kenney, Smith, Wall and Moe explained the value of an all-Canadian Energy East pipeline. They also had plenty to say about the cancellation of Energy East in 2017 and the role Ottawa played by creating the regulatory approval quagmire that helped kill it.
No less puzzling is that Wilkinson imagines such a pipeline could ever be built under the BANANAs (build absolutely nothing, anywhere, near anything) regulatory barriers implemented by the Liberals which make it next to impossible for anyone to build a new pipeline. When Jason Kenney referred to Bill C-69 as The No More Pipelines Bill he wasn’t just whistling Dixie.
The only major export pipeline to be built in the wake of C-69, was the Trans Mountain expansion (TMX). And it was only completed because the owner, the Government of Canada, was prepared to incur the staggering costs of navigating its own pipeline approval regulations. A pipeline originally budgeted to cost $6.8 billion wound up costing an additional $54 billion. Sane investors simply aren’t prepared to accept that level of unreasonable cost and uncertainty.
A first step in getting new pipelines built would be eliminating Bill C-69 along with Bill C-48, the West coast tanker ban. Wilkinson didn’t touch on those points when telling reporters about his bold new idea.
One has to wonder, after11 years of anti-oil and anti-pipeline policy making, if Wilkinson really means what he’s saying. Has he truly experienced a road to Damascus level conversion due to the threat of US tariffs?
Another plausible explanation for Wilkinson’s call for the resurrection of Energy East is that he’s seen the polling numbers. An Angus Reid poll conducted earlier this month shows 79% of Canadians from across the country support new oil and gas pipelines to tidewater on the east and west coasts. The poll also shows 74% of Quebec respondents now support the idea of building new pipelines to tidewater.
If those numbers hold, Canada’s next government could possibly revisit Energy East. If they succeeded in getting the line built it would represent the most visionary nation building project since the building of the trans-continental railway.
No less surprising is, despite the rise in public support for pipelines, Quebec Premier Francois Legault says he won’t accept a new oil pipeline in his province. Legault is out of step with Quebec opinion on more issues than pipelines. The separatist Parti Quebecois is currently leading Legault’s Coalition Avenir Quebec by 10 points in party preference polls. This is not to say the PQ is any more pipeline friendly.
After11 years of Liberal anti-oil and anti-pipeline policy making, Wilkinson is finally on the right side of the Energy East idea. Some might say better late than never—better to change one’s mind than to continue being wrong. Others will say it is a flip flop of epic proportions and questionable sincerity. Skeptical pundits will question whether Wilkinson’s new found fondness for pipelines is any more credible than Mark Carney’s pledge to get rid of the carbon tax.
Wilkinson is a bright man, so it is possible he has believed Energy East was a good idea for some time. Too bad he didn’t tell us sooner. He waited too long to come clean to expect electoral redemption.
Banks
The Great Exodus from the Net Zero Banking Alliance has arrived
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/tvrd-carney-wef-image-2025-02-03.jpg)
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Gina Pappano
Next, we need a Great Exodus from net zero ideology
In 2021, all of Canada’s Big Five Banks – TD, CIBC, BMO, Scotiabank and RBC – signed onto the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) and the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA).
U.N.-sponsored and Mark Carney-led, GFANZ is a sector-wide umbrella coalition whose goal is to accelerate global decarbonization and the emergence of a worldwide net zero global economy.
But now, in the first month of 2025, four of Canada’s Big Five Banks – TD, CIBC, BMO and Scotiabank – have announced their decision to exit the NZBA.
This came on the heels of similar announcements by six of the biggest U.S. banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo as well as the investment firm BlackRock leaving the Asset Management subgroup of the GFANZ.
That group, the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, has now suspended operations altogether, and the GFANZ and all of its subgroups are falling like a house of cards.
At InvestNow, the not-for-profit that I lead, we’re considering these developments a victory and a vindication of our work.
In November of 2024, we submitted shareholder proposals to Canada’s Big Five banks asking them to leave both the NZBA and the GFANZ. As of this writing, all but one of them have done just that.
But this is only a partial victory.
When they signed on to the NZBA, the banks pledged to align their lending, investment and banking activities with decarbonization goals, including achieving net zero emissions by 2050. They pledged to focus on higher emitting sectors first and foremost. In practice, this means they would be setting their sights on Canada’s natural resource sector.
That’s because the net zero ideology motivating these groups requires the drastic reduction of oil and gas production and use over a comparatively short period of time.
That is a serious threat to Canada since we’ve been blessed with an abundance of natural resources. Hydrocarbon energy has become the backbone of our economy, and the war being waged against it has already made our lives harder and more expensive. Left unchecked, these difficulties will compound, with ruinous results.
In joining the NZBA, the Big Five Banks agreed to divest from oil and gas, eliminating projects and companies from the investment pool simply because of the sector they work in, as part of a long-term goal of totally decarbonizing the economy.
Presumably, having left the Alliance, those banks could now change course, increasing investment in and lending to oil and gas firms with an eye toward increasing the return on investment for their shareholders.
Except the banks have stressed that they have no intention of doing so. In the press releases and articles about leaving the NZBA, each bank emphasized that this move should not be interpreted as them abandoning net zero itself. All of these banks remain committed to aligning their activities with decarbonization, no matter the cost to Canada, the Canadian economy or the good of its citizens.
This means we still have work to do. While we applaud the banks for exiting the NZBA, we will continue to work to get them to leave behind the net zero ideology as well. Then, and only then, will we claim a full victory.
Gina Pappano is the former head of market intelligence at the Toronto Stock Exchange and TSX Venture Exchange and executive director of InvestNow , a non-profit dedicated to demonstrating that investing in Canada’s resource sectors helps Canada and the world. Join the movement and pass the InvestNow resolution at investnow.org.
-
Banks18 hours ago
The Great Exodus from the Net Zero Banking Alliance has arrived
-
Bruce Dowbiggin19 hours ago
The Limping Loonie: Are Canada’s Pro Sports Team In Trouble Again?
-
Business15 hours ago
Trudeau Liberals pledge $41.5 million for over 100 pro-2SLGBTQI+ projects
-
Politics17 hours ago
Florida Panthers receive special honour during White House visit
-
Economy16 hours ago
Human population set to decline for the first time since the Black Death
-
Opinion2 days ago
Bill Maher Destroys NFL’s “End Racism” Message in One Brutal Takedown
-
COVID-192 days ago
Look what they did to our antibodies
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
The Real Purpose of Net Zero