energy

Friday February 19, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday February 19, 2021

Texas, Land of Wind and Lies

Politicians are neither gods nor saints. Because they aren’t gods, they often make bad policy decisions. Because they aren’t saints, they often try to evade responsibility for their failures, asserting either that they did as well as anyone could have or that someone else deserves the blame.

October 3, 2014

For a while, then, the politics surrounding the power outages that have spread across Texas looked fairly normal. True, the state’s leaders pursued reckless policies that set the stage for catastrophe, then tried to evade responsibility. But while their behavior was reprehensible, it was reprehensible in ways we’ve seen many times over the years.

However, that changed around a day after the severity of the disaster became apparent. Republican politicians and right-wing media, not content with run-of-the-mill blame-shifting, have coalesced around a malicious falsehood instead — the claim that wind and solar power caused the collapse of the Texas power grid, and that radical environmentalists are somehow responsible for the fact that millions of people are freezing in the dark, even though conservative Republicans have run the state for a generation.

This isn’t normal political malfeasance. It’s the energy-policy equivalent of claiming that the Jan. 6 insurrection was a false-flag Antifa operation — raw denial of reality, not just to escape accountability, but to demonize one’s opponents. And it’s another indicator of the moral and intellectual collapse of American conservatism.

The underlying story of what happened in Texas appears to be fairly clear. Like many states, Texas has a partly deregulated electricity market, but deregulation has gone further there than elsewhere. In particular, unlike other states, Texas chose not to provide power companies with incentives to install reserve capacity to deal with possible emergencies. This made power cheaper in normal times, but left the system vulnerable when things went wrong.

Texas authorities also ignored warnings about the risks associated with extreme cold. After a 2011 cold snap left millions of Texans in the dark, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission urged the state to winterize its power plants with insulation, heat pipes and other measures. But Texas, which has deliberately cut its power grid off from the rest of the country precisely to exempt itself from federal regulation, only partially implemented the recommendations.

And the deep freeze came.

January 31, 2019

A power grid poorly prepared to deal with extreme cold suffered multiple points of failure. The biggest problems appear to have come in the delivery of natural gas, which normally supplies most of the state’s winter electricity, as wellheads and pipelines froze. Nor was this merely a matter of the lights going out; people are freezing too, because many Texas homes have electric heat. Many of the homes without electrical heat rely on, yes, natural gas. We’re looking at enormous suffering and, probably, a significant death toll.

So Texas is experiencing a natural disaster made significantly worse by major policy errors — and the officials who made those errors should be held accountable.

Instead of accepting responsibility, however, officials from Gov. Greg Abbott on down, backed by virtually the entire right-wing media complex, have chosen to lay the blame on green energy, especially wind power.

November 29, 2018

Now, it’s true that the state generates a lot of electricity from wind, although it’s a small fraction of the total. But that’s not because Texas — Texas! — is run by environmental crazies. It’s because these days wind turbines are a cost-effective energy sourcewherever there’s a lot of wind, and one thing Texas has is a lot of wind.

It’s also true that extreme cold forced some of the state’s insufficiently winterized wind turbines to shut down, but as I said, this was happening to Texas energy sources across the board, with the worst problems involving natural gas.

Why, then, the all-out effort to falsely place the blame on wind power?

The incentives are obvious. Attacking wind power is a way for both elected officials and free-market ideologues to dodge responsibility for botched deregulation; it’s a way to please fossil fuel interests, which give the vast bulk of their political contributions to Republicans; and since progressives tend to favor renewable energy, it’s a way to own the libs. And it all dovetails with climate change denial.

But why do they think they can get away with such an obvious lie? The answer, surely, is that those peddling the lie know that they’re operating in a post-truth political landscape. When two-thirds of Republicans believe that Antifa was involved in the assault on the Capitol, selling the base a bogus narrative about the Texas electricity disaster is practically child’s play.

And if you’re expecting any change in the policies that helped cause this disaster, don’t count on it — at least as long as Texas remains Republican. Given everything else we’ve seen, the best bet is that demonization of wind power, not a realistic understanding of what actually happened, will rule policy going forward. (New York Times) 

 

Thursday February 27, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday February 27, 2020

Jason Kenney’s tantrums do not flatter Alberta

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is good at a lot of things. But when it comes to pointing the finger, he’s an absolute champion. Pointing the finger of blame at his predecessor Rachel Notley. At British Columbia for balking at his pipeline demands. At the rest of Canada (except Saskatchewan) for not sufficiently supporting Alberta’s oilpatch interests.

December 10, 2019

But when the federal government is the target, Kenney is a gold-medal Olympian finger pointer. Take this week’s Teck Frontier oil sands mine decision, for example. Announcing the company’s decision to not move forward with the project (even before the federal cabinet had approved or denied it), Teck CEO Don Lindsay said very clearly the reasons for shelving Frontier are a mix of low investor interest and environmental concerns. He pointedly did not blame the federal or any other government, although he made reference to Canada needing energy policy solutions that satisfy competing interests.

November 21, 2019

But to hear Kenney and his ministers talk, Teck holds Justin Trudeau personally responsible for the pullout. Kenney and friends certainly do. They say the Trudeau government’s lack of enthusiasm for new oil projects has created the national crisis we are now experiencing, and has also discouraged investors like Teck to the extent that they want nothing to do with investments like the $20 billion required for the mine north of Fort McMurray.

It is not hard to imagine that the sort of civil conflict now playing out across Canada over resource development would cause companies like Teck to be squeamish. But are political and societal volatility really enough to derail a project like this? To believe that, as Kenney seems to, would be beyond naive.

December 15, 2015

Lindsay wrote in his letter: “Global capital markets are changing rapidly, and investors and customers are increasingly looking for jurisdictions to have a framework in place that reconciles resource development and climate change.”

Speaking of money, Teck’s stock recently dropped more than 20 per cent in under a week. Like a lot of fossil-based resource companies, it is struggling, most recently with a weak fourth quarter. The simple fact is the global landscape is changing, and those “capital markets” are increasingly skittish about investments that rely on fossil fuels.

Lindsay has also said in the past that if the price of oil doesn’t increase significantly in the coming years, Teck would not be financially viable. There is no indication that will happen.

Bottom line: Teck was an iffy bet at best, and the uncertainty caused by deeply divided public opinion may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.

April 11, 2018

But isn’t the Trudeau government responsible for the current lack of consensus over resource policy? It certainly shares some of the responsibility. But leave it to a partisan extremist like Kenney to say with a straight face there isn’t blame all around. So Alberta is only a victim here? Its reluctance to commit to enforceable emission caps isn’t part of the problem? Its refusal to support any sort of price on carbon, even though the majority of Canadians expressed support for just that in the last election? (Parties that support a price on carbon got more electoral support than ones that didn’t, especially Kenney’s ideological roommates the Conservatives.)

Alberta’s problems are real. But they cannot all be laid at the feet of the federal government. The rest of Canada wants a serious plan to address climate change. Kenney may not like that, but unless he can figure out a way to move Alberta someplace else — say, next door to Kentucky — he would be wise to become part of the solution instead of being a champion, foot-stamping finger pointer. (Hamilton Spectator editorial) 

 

Thursday February 6, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday February 6, 2020

One step forward, another one back: What the Trans Mountain ruling means for Trudeau

In sports, you win some and you lose some. In politics, it’s possible to win and lose at the same time.

Pipeline cartoons

Take, for example, yesterday’s Federal Court of Appeal ruling on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

The court ruled unanimously that the federal government had fulfilled its duty to consult meaningfully with a handful of First Nations opposed to the project, clearing a major hurdle in the drawn-out battle to build a second line to carry bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands to Burnaby on the B.C. coast.

The federal and Alberta governments immediately claimed victory, putting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Jason Kenney on the same side for once.

“This project is in the public interest,” federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan told reporters shortly after the decision was released.

“We also know that this is a project that can deliver significant economic benefit to Alberta, to Canadians across the country,” added Finance Minister Bill Morneau. “And more importantly, we are going to put that economic benefit back into the environment.”

Their sense of relief was palpable. Ottawa spent around $4.5 billion in 2018 to buy TMX — a last-ditch effort to ensure the pipeline would be built after its owner, Kinder Morgan, announced plans to step away.

That price, hefty as it is, doesn’t include construction costs or any overruns the project has incurred because of the various stop-work orders that have put construction well behind schedule.

But with the victory comes a major setback in relations with those Indigenous groups who continue to oppose the $7.4-billion project, and will no doubt seek to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“Reconciliation stopped today,” said Rueben George, of the Tsleil-Waututh, his voice cracking with emotion.

The band was one of four Indigenous groups behind the court challenge. It argued that the second, court-ordered round of consultations also failed to respond adequately to their concerns about the impact the project would have on marine life.

“This government is incapable of making sound decisions for our future generations,” George said. “So we will — even for their children — we will take those steps to make sure Canada stays the way it is.” (CBC)

 

 

Friday October 11, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday October 11, 2019

Liberal climate plan offers the most hope

The critics who claim this federal election is devoid of big issues have got it wrong.

The challenge of fighting climate change stands out like a mountain that rises above a noisy, crowded plain.

On Election Day, the opportunity is here for this country to move up that mountain as never before, just when the calls for action around the world have reached a crescendo and as scientists warn time’s running out to avert an eventual catastrophe.

Fully aware of this, the main four national parties are all offering an action plan. But while each has its merits, after weighing the pros and cons of each party’s proposals, this newspaper believes the Liberals’ strategy is the most substantial, balanced and workable.

April 11, 2018

Despite what some well-meaning ideologues insist, Canada cannot meet its carbon emission targets — far less the utopian dream of no net emissions — overnight or in a few years. Not unless it wants to shut down its fossil-fuel-dependent economy, which no government would ever do.

The Liberals realize this and are trying to marry environmental necessity and economic reality. The policies they’ve enacted over the past four years are on track to taking Canada more than halfway toward meeting its Paris Agreement commitment. That would see this country reduce its carbon emissions in 2030 by a full third from what they were in 2005.

So far, the Liberals have imposed a carbon tax on provinces, such as Ontario, which have not put a price on carbon emissions. Implemented in April at $20 a tonne — about 4.3 cents a litre of gas at the pump — the tax will rise to $50 a tonne by 2022 and possibly more after that. If re-elected, the Liberals would also regulate the carbon content in fuels.

May 14, 2019

In sharp contrast, the Conservatives would axe the carbon tax, ignoring the fact that because most Canadians receive more in a carbon-tax rebate than they pay out, their pockets are not being picked even as they’re being encouraged to change their energy-consumption habits. The Conservatives’ approach also flies in the face of what most economists have long agreed: pricing carbon works from every perspective.

The Conservative plan to invest more in green technology and force large companies to spend more on such solutions if they fail to meet new emission standards would take Canada into unknown territory. It’s impossible to say how much emissions would fall under these initiatives or if they’d fall at all.

September 18, 2019

For their part, the New Democrats would keep the carbon tax while cancelling the rebates to millionaires. The party would also aim for a more ambitious emissions reduction — 38 per cent below 2005 levels — by 2030. Persuasive details for how this would happen, unfortunately, seem lacking.

As for the Green party’s commitment to even higher carbon taxes, more aggressive reductions in emissions and an end to the expansion of all pipelines including the Trans Mountain project, it ignores the serious economic fallout it would surely create.

The Liberals’ plan is far from perfect and, indeed, is still a work in progress. But while they’ve been criticized for buying the Trans Mountain pipeline and trying to expand it, the Liberals realize the race to stop climate change will be more like an ultra marathon than a 100-metre dash.

Canada needs to be in this for the long haul. And it must be economically healthy enough to keep running. Better than their rivals, the Liberals realize these truths and, on this issue at least, have the best plan. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Saturday September 28, 2019

September 28, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 28, 2019

Greta Thunberg meets Trudeau, tells him he’s not doing enough to fight climate change

September 24, 2019

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg told Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau today he’s not doing enough to protect the environment from the threat of runaway climate change.

Trudeau met the teenage activist ahead of Friday’s mass climate rally in Montreal in his capacity as prime minister. The pair spoke in private for about 15 minutes, shortly before Trudeau joined the rally marching through the city’s downtown.

After the meeting, Thunberg was asked if she had a message for Trudeau. She said that Trudeau is not doing enough — but added that she says the same thing to every political leader she meets.

“My message to all the politicians around the world is the same: just listen and act on the current, best available united science,” she said.

“I try not to focus on the individuals and rather focus on the whole picture because … of course it’s easier to just blame someone and of course he has a lot of responsibility … and he, of course, is not doing enough.

September 20, 2016

“But we need to, because this is such a huge problem. This is a system that is wrong. So my message to all the politicians is the same — to just listen to the science and act on the science.”

In a news conference announcing a proposal to plant trees to combat climate change, Trudeau called Thunberg a “remarkable” young person who is driving the conversation forward.

“She is the voice of a generation of young people who are calling on their leaders to do more and to do better, and I’m listening,” he said.

Trudeau was asked about a June 19 tweet from Thunberg in which she questioned Canada’s decision to declare a climate emergency one day and say yes to expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline the next.

April 11, 2018

“This is shameful. But of course this is not only in Canada, we can unfortunately see the same pattern everywhere,” she said.

Trudeau defended his government’s actions.

“We have a national climate plan that will reduce our emissions and hit our 2030 targets in a way that also includes getting a better price for our oil resources that allows us to put the profits directly into the fight against climate change,” he said.

Trudeau had a large security detail surrounding him and his family as they joined the crowds on the streets of Montreal for the climate rally. Some in the crowd chanted slogans attacking Trudeau’s embrace of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. (CBC)

 

Justin meets Greta from r/worldpoliticalhumour