energy

Wednesday May 31, 2023

May 31, 2023

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 31, 2023

Danielle Smith vs. Trudeau – Oil, Populism, and Federal Friction!

December 2, 2022

Alberta’s recent election witnessed the remarkable comeback of Premier Danielle Smith and her United Conservative Party (UCP). However, as Smith solidifies her position as premier, concerns arise about the potential tensions that may emerge between Alberta and the federal government, particularly under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Smith’s return to politics reintroduces a populist playbook that resonated with Albertans frustrated with COVID-19 restrictions and those seeking fundamental changes to Alberta’s role within Canada. This article explores the implications of Smith’s victory and the heightened conflict that may unfold in Canadian politics.

Smith’s campaign hinged on her promise to pass the Alberta Sovereignty Act, granting the provincial government the ability to opt out of enforcing federal legislation it deemed contrary to Alberta’s interests. While she tempered her stance on COVID-19 restrictions, the desire for increased provincial autonomy remained prevalent. The act was modified to become the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, aiming to ease concerns about secession while asserting Alberta’s constitutional toughness. By aligning with Saskatchewan’s similar efforts, Smith seeks to protect Alberta’s oil and gas industry and safeguard the province’s prosperity.

Opinion: The lessons for Pierre Poilievre from the Alberta election  

October 28, 2021

This election outcome sets the stage for potential clashes with the federal government. Smith’s victory, driven by support from oil and gas advocates, gives her a mandate to prioritize and defend the industry. As Alberta and Saskatchewan unite, they aim to push the federal government back within its designated boundaries, asserting provincial jurisdiction and potentially limiting federal actions. Such conflicts have the potential to strain federal-provincial relations, posing a significant challenge for Prime Minister Trudeau’s government.

Smith’s political challenges lie in reconciling competing pressures. To secure her victory, she had to appeal to centrist voters by advocating for well-funded public services and lower taxes. However, her populist base may exert pressure for more confrontational positions. Conflict with the federal government in support of oil and gas becomes a unifying stance, satisfying those who desire Alberta’s affluence and low tax rates while resonating with populists who share Smith’s resentment toward Ottawa.

Smith’s triumph holds lessons for Canadian conservatives. It demonstrates that centrist voters may overlook a leader’s controversial associations if presented with a strong economic proposition. However, it is important to recognize that Alberta’s unique circumstances as an oil-rich province contribute to the viability of such an offer. Other Canadian jurisdictions may not possess the same capacity.

News: United Conservatives’ narrow Alberta win sets up conflict with Trudeau  

October 14, 2022

Danielle Smith’s extraordinary political comeback as Alberta’s premier promises to have a profound impact on Canadian politics. As she assumes her role, tensions are likely to rise between Alberta and the federal government due to conflicting interests in resource development and environmental policies. Failure to resolve these conflicts in favor of Alberta may result in proposals for greater provincial autonomy, including the establishment of a provincial police force, pension plan, or revenue collection agency. Smith’s emergence as a prominent national figure raises questions about the future of Canadian politics and the delicate balance between federal and provincial powers. (AI)

 

Thursday August 25, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday August 25, 2022

Canada signs non-binding agreement with Germany to export hydrogen to Europe by 2025

The Canadian and German governments have signed a deal to co-operate on exporting hydrogen fuel to Europe, setting an ambitious target of 2025 to begin shipments from Eastern Canada – where a single hydrogen production plant has yet to be built.

April 13, 2022

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz signed the agreement in the western Newfoundland town of Stephenville, near the site of a proposed wind farm project that would power the production of hydrogen from electrolysis.

The joint declaration of intent makes clear the agreement is not legally binding and stipulates it will be up to Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources and Germany’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action to keep track of whether it’s making progress on its goals.

Canada currently produces about three million tonnes of hydrogen from natural gas a year, according to the federal government’s 2020 Hydrogen Strategy, which puts this country among the top 10 producers of the fuel in the world today. The Germans, however, want hydrogen made from renewable power and a raft of projects are under way in Canada to meet this demand.

The Canadian-German agreement sets no targets for volumes of hydrogen produced and contains no commitments of new money to help commence exports to Europe by 2025.

Thursday April 13, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday April 13, 2022

Will War Make Europe’s Switch to Clean Energy Even Harder?

At the Siemens Gamesa factory in Aalborg, Denmark, where the next generation of offshore wind turbines is being built, workers are on their hands and knees inside a shallow, canoe-shaped pod that stretches the length of a football field. It is a mold used to produce one half of a single propeller blade. Guided by laser markings, the crew is lining the sides with panels of balsa wood.

November 10, 2021

The gargantuan blades offer a glimpse of the energy future that Europe is racing toward with sudden urgency. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia — the European Union’s largest supplier of natural gas and oil — has spurred governments to accelerate plans to reduce their dependence on climate-changing fossil fuels. Armed conflict has prompted policymaking pledges that the more distant threat of an uninhabitable planet has not.

Smoothly managing Europe’s energy switch was always going to be difficult. Now, as economies stagger back from the second year of the pandemic, Russia’s attack on Ukraine grinds on and energy prices soar, the painful trade-offs have crystallized like never before.

Moving investments away from oil, gas and coal to sustainable sources like wind and solar, limiting and taxing carbon emissions, and building a new energy infrastructure to transmit electricity are crucial to weaning Europe off fossil fuels. But they are all likely to raise costs during the transition, an extremely difficult pill for the public and politicians to swallow.

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)