Jack Mintz: We won’t become an energy superpower without deregulation - "In his speech, Hodgson repeatedly referred to “ responsibly produced oil and gas ,” not just oil and gas. Albertans know well that the term “responsible oil” doesn’t mean oil produced in democratic countries rather than dictatorships. It means oil decarbonized to achieve the net-zero emission objective in 2050. But why is “responsible” only attached to the production of oil and gas ? Critical mining, which is so in vogue given the growing demand for electricity, can be irresponsible if waste and chemicals destroy habitat, contaminate water and soil and generate greenhouse gases and air pollution. Despite big past disasters, we never pin the “responsible” label on mining. Cleaning up Faro’s massive, contaminated open-pit lead and zinc mine in the Yukon is expected to cost more than $1 billion and take 15 years. Nor do we ever talk about “responsible” wind energy even though land-intensive windmills kill bats and birds, create noise pollution and cause turbine blade waste. Even “clean” hydro-energy destroys habitats and degrades water quality. Nuclear energy can be “irresponsible” when Chernobyl-like radiation leaks happen (though they don’t very often). For its part, solar energy is very land-intensive and relies on Chinese panels built with cheap energy from coal. My point is not to tar all energy sources with the same brush but simply to make clear the bias in policy development when politicians attach the label “responsible” only to oil and gas but not to other energy sources. As a result of this bias, voters are more likely to believe only oil and gas needs regulation or taxes. Neither Hodgson’s address nor the speech from the throne provided details about the federal government’s carbon plan. There is no word yet regarding withdrawal of Trudeau-era regulations such as the oil and gas emissions cap, the clean electricity mandate and the tanker bans. New pipelines and serious export of LNG remain pipe dreams unless some vague “consensus” for building them is achieved. Carney and Hodgson do say they want two-year approvals for resource projects but concern for Indigenous rights, diversity, equity and inclusiveness is not going away so that will be a challenge. What we do know is that the carbon plan the Liberals announced before the election includes some tougher regulations. Hiking the large-emitter tax after it is reviewed in 2026 is bound to discourage oil and gas development. With Alberta having made clear the tax should remain provincially controlled and not exceed $95 per tonne, there could be an unsettling confrontation... The Liberals’ biggest new proposal is a carbon “border adjustment mechanism” — a Trump-like tariff on carbon content in carbon-intensive imports. The idea is to protect trade-exposed sectors but it will make resource and manufacturing industries less cost-competitive in export markets. With the United States all but certain not to introduce carbon tariffs this decade — and very likely to view a Canadian carbon tariff as an unfair trading practice requiring retaliation — this policy will be another problem for producers. With a minority government, the Liberals may not have much room for reversing course on climate policy. Neither the Bloc nor NDP will support building pipelines or removing regulations like the oil and gas emissions cap. And there isn’t enough money for new subsidies for clean energy. Bottom line? If the near future is that policies aimed at “responsible” oil and gas don’t change, Canada won’t become an energy superpower soon. Instead, it may experience no new development at all."
Canada's cancelled oil pipeline projects - "The Canadian energy sector has proposed several major oil pipeline projects in the last decade, but only the Trans Mountain expansion project was completed...
Energy East - A proposed C$15.7-billion project (US$11.0 billion), Energy East would have carried oil cross-country from Alberta to the Atlantic province of New Brunswick. It was cancelled in 2017 by TC Energy in the face of regulatory hurdles and opposition from environmental groups, particularly in Quebec.
Northern Gateway - This pipeline was proposed by Enbridge in 2006 to carry oil from Alberta to British Columbia's northwest coast. The C$7.9-billion project (US$5.5 billion) faced opposition from local and Indigenous communities who feared the risk of a marine spill. The project died in 2016 after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government cancelled its permits."
Oil and gas subsidies in Canada climb to $29.6B, report finds - "The Canadian government provided $29.6 billion in direct subsidies and financing to the oil and gas industry in 2024, a new report has found. The dollar amount, calculated in an annual tally by the group Environmental Defence, includes $21 billion in financing for the Trans Mountain pipeline. Another $7.5 billion in public financing flowed through Export Development Canada, a Crown corporation that acts as an export credit agency to help Canadian companies grow internationally... an official with the Department of Finance told BIV the more than $20 billion loan to finance the Trans Mountain pipeline should not be counted as a subsidy. It was meant to replace existing higher-cost third-party financing and would reduce the company’s interest costs so it can pay down construction costs faster as it moves to sell the pipeline."
Left wing logic: make pipelines impossible to build, then claim that the government providing financing is a huge "subsidy" (left wingers thinking loans are grants tracks with their understanding of economics)
Export Development Canada works with many industries and provided cleantech $12.2 billion in 2023, but let's pretend that it's just subsidies for oil and gas
Renewable tax credit cuts have exposed the green industry’s dirty secret - "The cat is out of the bag. Electricity made from renewable sources is not as “cheap” as its advocates sometimes claim. It evidently cannot survive without billions annually in tax credits. That’s the message from the latest skirmish over America’s renewable energy future, where the House and Senate have unveiled duelling visions for the rollback of energy tax credits – each with its own tempo and tone. The vitriolic reaction from the green lobby, and the predictions of disaster for renewables should any of these changes be passed into law, have exposed just how economically unsustainable even the fiercest backers of these energy sources clearly accept them to be. Supporters of renewable energy have assured us for years that the wind blows and the sun shines free of charge. But although these technologies have received hundreds of billions in subsidies globally over the past 20 years, proponents still demand more – for a few years, we’re told, until renewables can stand on their own feet... It is often asserted that electricity in the United States made with wind and solar is less expensive than electricity made by natural gas and coal. But rather than declining, average American electricity prices have risen considerably over the past 20 years as wind and solar have entered the electricity mix. One dirty little secret is that, on a state-by-state basis, nine out of the top 10 states in electricity prices in the United States in 2024 required renewable energy as part of their electricity mix. The bottom 10 states generally did not require renewable energy... Taxpayers are paying multiple times for renewables. In their electricity bills, they pay not only for wind and solar, but for the backups to the wind and solar. In their tax bills, they pay for the energy tax credits. They also give up faster economic growth when electricity prices rise. Another dirty secret is that renewable energy is often neither green nor clean. About 70 per cent of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and their components are made in China, which remains reliant on coal-fired power plants to fuel its industries. Wind turbines kill birds, and, when offshore, can harm sea mammals. Solar power can take over agricultural land, which is likely to drive up the price of food. Green and clean are marketing hype used to push renewables onto unsuspecting consumers... With the end of these tax credits, Americans may well discover that the true costs of renewable energy are higher than utility companies are willing to bear. Developers are already saying that they will halt projects without the tax credits. If the age of renewable energy tax credits is drawing to a close, Americans will be the beneficiaries. The question is how abruptly Washington will pull the plug – and whether other countries will follow."
Humans may be fueling global warming by breathing: new study
Humans are the carbon they want to reduce
$300M federal climate programs failed to produce new jobs: report - "A report by the Department of Natural Resources says two 2018 federal climate programs that promised new jobs and lower emissions failed to provide either according to Blacklock’s Reporter. In fact, managers “stopped collecting” data that would establish whether taxpayers received value for money for the programs that received multi-year funding to the tune of $301.38 million to subsidize power projects. Managers “stopped collecting certain performance metrics, e.g. greenhouse gas emission reductions, throughout the project duration,” said the report. “These metrics will only be collected in final reporting as those responsible for program delivery only expect meaningful data to be available once solutions have been fully implemented and tested. At that time, evidence suggests it will most likely be too difficult and too late to identify weaknesses or errors and make changes and corrections.” Auditors wrote that the records made available were incomplete. “Removing annual reporting increases the risk of poor quality performance information,” said the report. “Documents provided by funding recipients had some gaps in actual outcomes and results. The evaluation team also observed some outcome information is not captured consistently across projects.” Back then, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said the programs would “help build cleaner, safer, better connected electricity systems and create well-paying jobs for middle class Canadians.” The report says neither claim was verified. “There are areas of improvement and lessons learned,” it said. “There are inconsistencies in how the programs collect performance information. The lack of a consistent approach in how data were reported rendered it impossible to aggregate the results and thus accurately assess the extent to which some of the indicators have been met.” No job creation figures were projected when the programs were launched."
Damn climate change deniers! Time to fire all of them!
EU exempting heavy industry from carbon tax as Canada doubles down - "A new European Union plan to exempt its heavy industry from carbon taxes could have ramifications for Canada, given that heavy industry is one of the only corners of the Canadian economy where carbon taxes will continue to apply. According to reporting in the Financial Times, the European Commission is reviewing a measure that would exempt industrial sectors such as concrete and steelmakers from having to pay carbon taxes on exported products.The idea is to avoid kneecapping European exporters competing with the likes of China and India, whose own heavy industry face no such taxes. As the EU’s climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told the Financial Times, carbon pricing could not come “at the expense of our own companies (as they) face unfair competition on the global market.” Such an exemption would effectively be the inverse of what Canada has been doing on carbon pricing... Ironically, the EU’s proposed carbon tax exemptions for heavy industry come at the exact same time that the European Commission is unveiling new legislation to reduce the trading bloc’s carbon footprint by up to 90 per cent by 2040. Nevertheless, the EU has promised its member states will be allowed “flexibilities” in reaching that goal. The proposed EU exemption for heavy industry follows closely on another major EU concession on carbon pricing passed just last month. Starting next year, the EU is set to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBMA) that would place tariffs on imports coming from non-carbon priced jurisdictions. The idea being “to encourage greater climate ambition in non-EU countries.” But in June, the EU announced that 90 per cent of its importers would be exempt from the CBAM. Any firm importing less than 50 tonnes per year of foreign product wouldn’t have to worry.The EU exemptions would seem to undermine one of the Liberal government’s signature defences of carbon pricing as being necessary to maintain competitiveness with foreign markets. Just last summer, Canada’s ambassador to France, Stéphane Dion, delivered an entire speech entitled “carbon pricing as an asset for Canadian exports to Europe.” “Carbon pricing is an export tool, and abolishing it in Canada would not only be an ecological mistake, but also contrary to the economic interests of Canadians,” said Dion. In June, Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux told the House of Commons that the industrial carbon tax had to be maintained to preserve Canadian access to the “global market.” “The new prime minister and the new government have made a decision to get rid of the consumer carbon tax, but we still understand the importance of having the industrial carbon pricing system,” said Lamoureux. “Let us be very clear on that, because we understand the global market and the critical role that has to play in it.”"
The CBC is grooming Canadians to accept less and pay more. : r/CanadianConservative - "Can I just point out the pure hypocrisy of screaming "decarbonization", taxing gas vehicles, and keeping the industrial carbon tax while promising to invest heavily in AI? AI data centers consume unfathomable amounts of energy. I can't with the hypocrisy."
Carney fiddles as Canada literally burns - "For the past decade, the Liberals have made climate change their top priority. This commitment has come at the cost of not only watching as other countries pursued economic opportunities that we passed up, it has also sparked a national unity crisis, as Alberta’s anger has risen in response to Ottawa’s unwillingness to approve new energy projects. So Canadians might be surprised to hear that despite all the talk about climate change and this country’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions, over the past few years, a huge new source of emissions has emerged — one that the Canadian government does not want to talk about. That alone tells you that the source of the emissions is not the oil and gas industry. Rather, the source of these new emissions is this country’s massive wildfire problem, which started making headlines in 2023, the worst wildfire season on record, and has been bad ever since. But what makes this issue even more concerning is that we lack the resources and strategy to fight these fires. Canada does not have a federal office that could formulate a national strategy for combating wildfires, nor do we have the personnel and equipment to combat them effectively. Rather, fighting wildfires is a provincial responsibility, one that the provinces have proven themselves incapable of doing effectively. Given that, you might think that the federal government would be attempting to figure out ways to at least assist the provinces with a task they are clearly overwhelmed by. Sadly, you would be mistaken. Despite all that has happened over the past few years, the response of the federal government has been characterized by inaction. No major departmental changes have been made, no initiatives have been undertaken, nor have any major acquisitions been announced. And Canada still does not have a national disaster response agency... The carbon emissions produced by the fires were stunning. A study published in the journal Nature in 2024 found that the fires released around 647 megatonnes of carbon. This number was larger than Canada’s total emissions from all other sources, and the combined number made us one of the largest emitters in the world in 2023 (a ranking the Liberals tried hard to ignore). At the time, many noted that Canada lacked the capacity to fight the fires effectively, and thus the fires burned longer and caused more damage than they otherwise would have"
Combatting wildfires is not a good way to increase government control and power (and there're fewer ways for politicians to profit too), so it doesn't matter
Calling us Nimbys is 'hate speech', say campaigners - "People opposing the building of one of Europe’s largest solar farms have said the term ‘Nimby’ is hate speech. Botley West Solar Farm could cover about 2,470 acres of countryside in west Oxfordshire and power 330,000 homes if approved. But Save Botley West says this would affect 15 villages as well as water meadows and heritage sites across Botley, Woodstock and Kidlington. The anti-solar farm campaign group’s chairman, Professor Alex Rogers, has said calling them Nimbys ‘alienates’ them... Prof Rogers said: ‘We’ve heard the term Nimby bandied about by the Labour government in particular, effectively that is pejorative language deliberately used to alienate and isolate ordinary people who are legitimately concerned about the really serious impacts of what is, in effect, a non-sustainable project. ‘I would view a sustainable project as one which obviously benefits the climate, which this does, but also benefits people who live in the region and benefits wider aspects of the environment – and this scheme certainly does not do that.’... the solar farm, roughly the size of Heathrow Airport, would impact the area’s view. He said: ‘Because of the nature of the landscape that this has been put into, which essentially comprises river valleys and hills, it’s very, very difficult to conceal this solar farm in the landscape.’ Council officials said in an impact report last week that the solar farm would likely have a ‘negative’ impact on local tourism."
Vancouver plane hijacking: Ex-pilot called himself messiah - "The day before the suspected hijacking of a light aircraft triggered a security scare at Vancouver’s airport this week, former commercial pilot Shaheer Cassim posted on social media that he was a “messenger of Allah” sent to save humanity from climate change. A 39-year-old man with the same name has now been charged with hijacking, constituting terrorism, over the incident on Tuesday that saw Norad scramble F-15 fighter jets before the Cessna safely landed... Images posted on social media of the arrest of the Cessna’s pilot on the airport’s north runway show a bearded man who resembles Cassim, whose online posts include musings on religion, climate science, and advocacy for tolerance and peace. He says “the Angel Gabriel appeared before me and gave me a message from Allah.” “I am a messenger of Allah. I am the Messiah sent to save humanity from climate change and usher in an era of world peace,” Cassim said on Facebook on Monday... Cassim’s last post warns about “abrupt runaway global warming” that will cause humans to go extinct within a few years. Cassim also says in the post that he is “Sam Carana,” who runs the “Arctic News” blog that describes itself as a place where contributors “all share a deep concern about the way climate change is unfolding in the Arctic and the threat that this poses for the world at large.” It includes hundreds of posts since 2011, many of them highly technical, with the latest entry made on Saturday and titled: “Will humans go extinct soon?”... In 2012, Cassim held a news conference before going on a cross-country bicycle ride to raise awareness for global warming... Cassim believed the world was coming to an end."
Climate change hysteria has very real costs. Of course, if he had been pushing a cause the left disapproved of, they would be calling for re-education and mass arrests (like with incels)
Rob Breakenridge: Carney's chance to scrap job-destroying emissions cap - "The report forecasts that under current trends, oil and gas production would be 11.1 per cent higher than current levels. However, remaining within the upper limit of the emissions cap would instead mean that production would have to be reduced by 4.9 per cent. That, in turn, would represent a $20.5-billion reduction in nominal GDP and a potential loss of over 54,000 full-time jobs... The PBO report underscores that we will pay a hefty price for a policy that never really made sense. The government had not previously singled out specific sectors for this kind of regulation, preferring instead to put a price on carbon regardless of its source. The emissions cap flies in the face of that, and represents a much more costly and much less efficient way of reducing emissions."
Environmentalists must learn carbon capture is key to net zero - "the argument of Environmental Defence and others is that carbon capture is iniquitous because it will prolong reliance on oil and gas. ED argues that the government’s incentive of a 50 per cent investment tax credit is a “significant new fossil fuel subsidy,” in contradiction to Ottawa’s promise to end subsidies by 2023, and, as a result, oil and gas companies are spending very little of their own money on carbon capture investments... Idealists who think Canada can achieve net zero without carbon capture or nuclear should refer to the data. Since 2000, the world has only reduced its global dependence on fossil fuels by three per cent because of growth in demand from India and China, challenges with the intermittency of renewables and the slow rollout of infrastructure."
When left wingers go on about "subsidies" for oil and gas, this is what they mean. They oppose industry-neutral policies and want dirigisme. This is similar to their logic claiming that the government subsidises Walmart because some Walmart workers use public assistance. They have a purity obsession and don't actually primarily want reduced emissions - just to kill the fossil fuel industry (in Western countries)
Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored - "I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply. As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]". Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear. So it's disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri's presentation was so erroneous, and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university. Later that night, on ABC TV's Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those who disagree with his own views on global warming are "flat-earthers" who deny "the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence". But what evidence could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself had fudged only a few hours earlier? In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is shrinking, a curious claim he was unable to substantiate when questioned about it on Lateline... Professor Richard Lindzen, of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, probably the most qualified prominent global-warming sceptic, suggested that a number of changes in the way science is conducted have contributed to the rise of climate alarmism among American scientists. Central to this is the importance of government funding to science. Much of that funding since World War II has occurred because scientists build up public fears (examples include fear of the USSR's superiority in weapons or space travel, of health problems, of environmental degradation) and offer themselves as the solution to those fears. The administrators who work with the scientists join in with enthusiasm: much of their own funding is attached to the scientific grants. Lindzen says this state of affairs favours science involving fear, and also science that involves expensive activities such as computer modelling. He notes we have seen "the de-emphasis of theory because of its difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals. "In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and [computer] programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage." Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists... the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail. Sceptics are not the only ones who have received funding from sources sympathetic to their viewpoint... Lindzen claims that scientific journals play an important role in promoting global warming alarmism, and gives a number of examples. Someone else who's looked closely at scientific journals (although not specifically those dealing with climate science) is epidemiologist John Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication. (Lest he be dismissed as some eccentric, I note that the Economist recently said Ioannidis has made his case "quite convincingly".) Why might this be so? Later work by Ioannidis and colleagues suggests that these days journal editors are more likely to publish research that will make a splash than that which will not."
From 2008. Conflict of interest is only disqualifying when that pushes the left wing agenda