Big Climate, Internally Conflicted, Descending into Farce

COP28 in the desert is a suitable end to Big Climate.
It ends with a bang, as it were. And Trudeau withdraws with a whimper.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Please, let this be the final farce on the 33rd try

Raymond J. de Souza asks a good question at National Post: Is Big Climate over? That would be good for the environment.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Backing away from absurd, grandiose policies would
shift attention toward more practical measures

Is the era of Big Climate over? It may be that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has implicitly declared as much.

He would not say such a thing, as when Bill Clinton emphatically declared the “era of big government over” in the 1990s. Clinton was trying to show that he was a different kind of progressive, leaving behind the activist government of the 1960s. In contrast, the Vogue-photographed Trudeau was Big Climate’s most glamorous spokesmodel.

His absence at the UN climate jamboree in Dubai is thus striking.

Instead, conservative premiers Danielle Smith and Scott Moe are both on hand to promote oil and gas deals in the petro-state, but not the prime minister. Was it only eight years ago that a newly elected Trudeau descended upon the climate summit in Paris with a bloated retinue of hundreds, all the better to declare that “Canada is back?” He has now backed away.

Canada really isn’t back — we have never been quite so marginal in international relations as we are now — but certainly we were celebrated in Big Climate circles. In the heady days of 2019 Trudeau was even granted an audience with Greta Thunberg.

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau greets Swedish climate change teen activist Greta Thunberg before a climate strike march in Montreal, Quebec, Canada September 27, 2019. REUTERS/Andrej Ivanov

That was a sign, in retrospect, that Big Climate was in decline.
Inviting a Swedish teenager to indignantly lecture global leaders
indicated that Big Climate was entering its absurd phase.

Big Government, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Football (FIFA now, NFL in future) are behemoths that seem unstoppable, commanding all they survey. Then they enter their absurd phase, when their excesses become increasingly implausible. They don’t disappear. The advantage of being big is a certain momentum that carries forward, albeit diminished.

There is a point though when there is a qualitative change, even if massive quantity endures for a while. For Big Government, perhaps it was Clinton’s declaration. For Big Tobacco, it was when the assembled chief executives swore under oath that they had no idea that smoking could be addictive.

Big Climate had a good run. Ecological consciousness has been growing since the late 1960s. It’s a relatively easy sell. Everyone desires clean air, clean water, parks and natural beauty. Conservatives like conservation, after all, and progressives like government regulation to get there.

Big Climate was born out of that wider ecological movement, specifically at the 1992 “Earth summit” in Rio. The current Dubai “COP28” conference is the 28th “conference of the parties” that grew out of Rio 1992. Big Climate grew ever bigger, so much so that 70,000 delegates landed in Dubai this year. Along the way were milestones, such as Kyoto 1997 and Paris 2015, in which Big Climate managed to get wide agreement on re-ordering the global economy in principle, if not practice.

This year, though, one gets the sense that Big Climate has become wrapped in too many contradictions, capped off with a farcical conference in the petro-state’s air-conditioned desert. The incongruity of it all was nicely highlighted by the brouhaha that erupted when the Emirati conference chairman blithely declared that there was no real scientific basis to phase out fossil fuels.

Consider the Germans, Big Climate’s biggest booster in the heart of Europe. This year marked the end of German nuclear power, with the last reactors closed. Germany has now moved to a higher carbon future, burning coal and natural gas.

That proved a bit tricky when at war with Russia in Ukraine, so Germany turned to Canada for natural gas supplies. Trudeau refused to sell Germans our natural gas, directing them instead to Qatar. That strikes most folks as absurd.

Canada and Germany Sign Agreement to Enhance German Energy Security with Clean Canadian Hydrogen August 2022.  And the hydrogen energy project is still pie in the sky.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden, who began his administration with an ostentatious cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, lest Canadian resources pollute the American energy grid, has now decided to increase imports of Venezuelan oil and gas. That, too, is absurd.

Then there are billions upon billions of dollars — with Canada and the EU scrambling to match American subsidies — being lavished upon electric battery manufacturers, making “green jobs” a giant tax-funded boondoggle. That the great climate villain in the auto sector, Volkswagen, is a beneficiary of such largesse only makes the absurdity more galling.

Yes, those are trillions of dollars they are projecting.

Against all that, Trudeau’s decision to compromise his climate agenda to save a few Atlantic ridings is a rather low-voltage issue. Yet it shows that Big Climate is losing its power.

The end of Big Climate may be good for the climate. Backing away from grandiose and absurd policies shifts attention toward more practical and reasonable measures that will garner wider public support.

COP28 in the desert is a suitable end to Big Climate.
It ends with a bang, as it were. And Trudeau withdraws with a whimper.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Reality Check on Trudeau’s Climate Impact Act

Canada-Court-Chaimber

Canada’s natural resources industries won a victory in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Alberta_Oil_Industry_Facts

From Watts Up With That?

In a recent ruling that sent shockwaves through the corridors of Canadian power, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a blow to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s environmental aspirations. The court found significant portions of the federal government’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA) unconstitutional, siding with provinces like Alberta that have long argued against what they saw as federal overreach into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The IAA, a cornerstone of Trudeau’s environmental policy, required comprehensive environmental assessments to be conducted before greenlighting major projects, particularly those within industries such as oil, pipelines, and coal mines. The act was seen as a tool to gauge the potential environmental impacts of significant industrial projects, aligning with broader global movements towards sustainable and environmentally conscious development.

“The Supreme Court of Canada ruled by a 5-2 majority Friday that the federal government’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and its accompanying regulations are partially unconstitutional, as they empower the federal government to create environmental regulations that should have been within provincial jurisdictions.”https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/10/canada-supreme-court-rules-environmental-impact-regulations-are-partially-unconstitutional/

The court’s decision hinged on the argument that the IAA granted the federal government overly broad powers, enabling it to intervene in areas traditionally under provincial control. The majority opinion highlighted concerns regarding the act’s vague decision-making mechanisms and the expansive powers it conferred upon the federal government, particularly concerning the regulation of projects with environmental impacts.

“The majority found that the IAA’s method of designating projects for an environmental assessment is ultra vires, outside of federal jurisdiction… Additionally, the majority found the phrase “effects within federal jurisdiction” within the act grants the federal government an overly broad power that violates the separation of powers doctrine in the Canadian Constitution.”https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/10/canada-supreme-court-rules-environmental-impact-regulations-are-partially-unconstitutional/

The ruling underscores the complexities and contentious nature of environmental regulation in a federation where jurisdictional boundaries are meticulously delineated. It reflects a judicial inclination towards upholding the sanctity of constitutional divisions of power, ensuring that the federal government does not unilaterally encroach upon areas reserved for provincial authority.

While the court’s decision does not obliterate the IAA in its entirety, it necessitates a recalibration of the act’s provisions to align them with constitutional mandates. The federal government, in response, has signaled its intention to amend the legislation in accordance with the court’s directives, ensuring that ongoing and future project assessments remain uninterrupted.

“Although this court ruling is an advisory opinion that does not render the IAA being struck down automatically, the federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said Parliament would amend the legislation accordingly.”https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/10/canada-supreme-court-rules-environmental-impact-regulations-are-partially-unconstitutional/

This ruling is a vivid reminder of the inherent tensions in crafting environmental policies within a federal structure. It brings to the forefront the value of a constitution to protect local governments from an overly zealous Federal approach, ensuring that the zeal for environmental policy, either valuable or headstrong and disastrous, does not inadvertently trample upon established jurisdictional prerogatives.

Canada Supreme Court rules environmental impact act is partially unconstitutional

jurist.org

H/T Gary P

Canada Road to Ruin Paved with Trudeau’s CO2 Intentions

Why would we “transition” these high-paying, unsubsidized jobs?
And transition them to what?

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Bill Bewick explains in his National Post article Federal climate policy makes us poorer.  Excerpts in italics wtih my bolds and added images.

The clean fuel standard on top of an escalating carbon tax and onerous emissions
targets will make everything more expensive

Canada is in an affordability crisis. Despite the pain felt by Canadians every day at the till or the gas pump, the federal government’s passion for world-leading carbon taxes and regulations is driving up the cost of everything while making us collectively poorer.

Tax advocates say it is a small % of GDP. But it is still $10 Billion extracted from Canadian households.

Canada Day saw the Clean Fuel Standards (CFS) regulation come into effect. A week earlier they passed a “Sustainable Jobs Act” that seeks to help transition workers away from highly productive jobs in oil, gas and related industries despite growing global demand for these energy sources.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that by 2030 the net CFS cost will be over $1,100 per household in Alberta and Saskatchewan. While it will add roughly 17 cents on a litre of fuel (in addition to the carbon tax, of course) most of the costs will be on Canadian businesses, which means less jobs, less tax revenue and higher prices, making life more expensive with less ability to pay for it.

The fact is the world will need oil for the next 20-30 years at least. Canada is the responsible, reliable supplier many in the world would already prefer to get their energy from. With Canadian oilsands producers aggressively pursuing net zero operations by 2050, there is no better place to get oil from.

The demand for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is booming globally. It should be vocally supported by anyone concerned with emissions since Canadian exports off our west coast would drive down the need for all the coal plants being built and planned in China and India. It also features an unprecedented level of Indigenous partnerships, offering an unparalleled opportunity for the economic self-sufficiency of countless communities.

Why would we “transition” these high-paying, unsubsidized jobs?
And transition them to what?

Well, the federal government seems to know that our oil and gas sector will have to shrink despite growing world demand. This is because in addition to steadily rising carbon taxes and the new CFS, they’ve arbitrarily demanded a 42 per cent reduction in emissions for the oil and gas sector in seven short years.

Requiring this drastic reduction by 2030 will force hasty and frantic changes as well as production cuts that will drive up energy prices for everyone while decreasing jobs and government revenues. That means more debt and more tax burden for Canadians, while hurting our economy and increasing our reliance on foreign oil.

An escalating carbon tax was supposed to let the economy decarbonize in an efficient way, but the federal government keeps piling on. This is crushing Canada’s competitiveness generally, especially after our American neighbours decided to go along with most of the rest of the world and not implement a carbon tax at all.

The fact that every manufacturer, farmer, trucker, and even commercial business owner on this side of the border has to pay these taxes on their fuel, heat, and power means everything is more expensive and will keep going up. Lower wages and job opportunities means we will be less and less able to afford it.

The government either says we must make these sacrifices for the planet, or that the green jobs they will transition to will be just as profitable and more sustainable. Their most recent example: the Volkswagen battery plant. There will be 3,000 jobs created, but the government will subsidize the plant with an estimated $13 billion. Does $4.3 million in taxpayer dollars per job sound sustainable to you?

As for our sacrifices saving the planet, carbon emissions are global. As Asia grows its economy, emissions are steadily rising. Canada can certainly “do its part” but other than massive LNG export to Asia, nothing we do with our declining 1.6 per cent share can meaningfully reduce overall global emissions.

There’s one more major federal policy being pursued that might be the most expensive of them all: the demand that every province’s electrical grid get to net zero by 2035. Canadian ratepayers spent billions to convert coal plants to gas and subsidize solar and wind projects. Now they are forcing us to get off natural gas entirely — a fuel source even the EU considers green.

Canadians care about reducing emissions and it is happening. Canadians also care about affordability. We need to demand our governments find a balance between the two. If Canada recalibrates our carbon policies to be part of the global parade instead of driving off an economic cliff, we can have both.

See Also Canada Budget Officer Quashes Climate Alarm