{"id":415502,"date":"2025-12-01T09:23:12","date_gmt":"2025-12-01T08:23:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=415502"},"modified":"2025-12-26T02:45:35","modified_gmt":"2025-12-26T01:45:35","slug":"carney-directs-canada-pipeline-charade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=415502","title":{"rendered":"Carney Directs Canada Pipeline\u00a0Charade"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"An<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Q: Do Leopards Change Their Spots? A: No,
because it\u2019s chamouflage concealing their real motives.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This National Post editorial gives the game away: The Carney-Smith pipeline of uncertainty.<\/strong><\/a>  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MOU adds as many roadblocks as it clears away<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Two
Prime Minister Mark Carney, right, signs an MOU with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in Calgary, Alta., Thursday, Nov. 27, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS\/Jeff McIntosh<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Had the Great Smith-Carney Pipelines and Climate Pact<\/a> of 2025 emerged say, five years ago, it would have been considered squarely within the realm of Liberal environmentalism. Instead, because former prime minister Justin Trudeau brought in several anti-business policies, the current prime minister is being feted\/scorned as being pro-energy<\/strong> industry by disappointed Liberals and relieved conservatives alike. While Mark Carney deserves credit for negotiating this deal with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, and bringing a rival onside, we\u2019re skeptical at the chances a pipeline ever gets built.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

There are definitely\u00a0some positives in the deal<\/strong>\u00a0that Smith can present at the UCP annual general meeting this weekend in an attempt to quell the separatist uprising within her governing party. Ottawa has officially\u00a0committed to \u201cIncreasing production of Alberta oil and gas\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0and<\/strong>\u00a0to the approval and construction of\u00a0\u201cone or more private sector constructed and financed pipelines.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0The Liberals promise<\/strong>\u00a0they \u201cwill not implement the Oil and Gas Emissions Cap\u201d and will exempt Alberta from the government\u2019s clean energy regulations. They would also consider a temporary exemption to the west coast tanker ban.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Cartoon<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

All of these regulations<\/strong> have been points of contention for Alberta, so it is to Smith\u2019s credit that she was able to persuade Carney to budge.  But it\u2019s possible this will not<\/strong> accomplish much more than to remove extra layers of regulation<\/strong>, which were unnecessary even by environmental standards. Under the Trudeau Liberals, there was to be a consumer carbon tax, industrial carbon tax, as well as the clean energy regulations and emissions cap<\/strong>. And it did not end there, as the Impact Assessment Act, also brought in under Trudeau, mandates onerous environmental and social review,<\/strong> including the consideration of \u201cIndigenous knowledge\u201d alongside scientific assessment, as well as considering the \u201cintersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Carney is at all serious about kickstarting investment in Canada,
he should at minimum be willing to clear away some of these extra rules.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, it seems that environmental policies and expectations are\u00a0merely being shifted around<\/strong>. Because what is being asked of Alberta would appear to provide only the\u00a0narrowest of paths for the construction of a new pipeline<\/strong>\u00a0to the West coast. Under the memorandum of understanding between Smith and Carney, the province would have to\u00a0raise its industrial carbon tax from $95\/tonne to a minimum of $130\/tonne, and reduce methane emissions<\/strong>, produced by the energy industry and farmers, to 75 per cent below 2014 levels. And in addition to the duty to consult Indigenous communities, any pipeline must have\u00a0Indigenous co-ownership.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Further to that, the construction of a pipeline is entirely contingent on<\/strong> the simultaneous construction of a massive carbon capture project,<\/strong> presumably so Carney can claim the new pipeline is moving only \u201clow emission\u201d barrels of bitumen. Finally, while the MOU does not explicitly give B.C. a veto, that province is to be included \u201cimmediately\u201d in a \u201ctrilateral discussion\u201d on the project. B.C. Premier David Eby is opposed<\/strong> to a pipeline and was highly critical of the deal, claiming it would take priority away from other projects, specifically B.C. projects Eby supports. [<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Aerial
April 30, 2024 (IEEFA) \u2013 More than CAD1 billion were spent retrofitting the Boundary Dam 3 (BD3) coal plant in Saskatchewan to add carbon capture technology. After nine years, the project has a consistent history of capturing far less than the 90 per cent promised when the project was built\u2014and all the carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at the plant is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) that injects captured CO2 into the ground to extract more oil..Carbon capture at Boundary Dam 3 still an underperforming failure<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

And the roadblocks to a new pipeline don\u2019t end there.<\/strong> While it would be approved through the Major Projects Office,<\/strong> it isn\u2019t at all clear what purpose that will serve. Carney\u2019s Liberals gave themselves the authority to suspend regulatory review to expedite projects<\/strong> in the national interest. However, the office is electing not to use this power<\/strong> so far, stating on its website that \u201cProjects will continue to be subject to all regulatory review processes.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So being approved through the MPO may give the pipeline certainty that
it will be approved \u2014 eventually. That means every investment killing
process under the Impact Assessment Act will have to be passed.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the Smith-Carney deal<\/strong> does accomplish is to buy both of them time to each satisfy their base.<\/strong> For Smith that is conservatives flirting with separatism<\/strong>, and for Carney, it is environmentalist Liberals,<\/strong> some of whom see this deal as a betrayal, such as former environment minister Steven Guilbeault who quit cabinet in protest. We applaud genuine attempts from Ottawa to work with, as opposed to against, Alberta, but we\u2019re not confident this plan will deliver what is promised.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

See Also:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Canada PM Carney Floats Imaginary “Decarbonized Oil” Pipeline<\/a><\/blockquote>