energy

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

 

Thursday September 19, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday September 19, 2019

Political smorgasbord doesn’t come free

Transactional politics are nothing new. That’s where a politician and/or a party offers goodies on the front end of the transaction, and the voter supports the politician/party on the back end.

September 12, 2019

It’s not unlike shopping and being drawn to sales or special deals that look especially appealing. That outfit looks good, but wait, the one next to it looks as good but it’s cheaper, or perhaps nicer in some small way. So the natural tendency is to take the one that seems better, even if the difference is marginal.

But what if the front of the special buy is fine, but you see flaws or differences once it’s unwrapped? What if you find out it needs special treatment when being cleaned, or it requires some sort of investment you weren’t expecting?

The analogy with the kind of transactional politics we’re experiencing during this election campaign isn’t perfect, but it serves the purpose. The political store has been bustling with promises, especially over the last several days, as the competing parties roll out their platforms — bit by bit — and try to be the outfit with that special something.

October 10, 2015

There’s nothing wrong with all this, to a point. It serves the purpose of offering measurable alternatives. If you don’t like the Conservative plan to expand RESPs, you can choose the Liberals because you like their plan about helping first-time home buyers. Or vice-versa. But it can be problematic when this sort of offer-of-the-day political play dominates the campaign to the exclusion of all else, and that is what’s happening right now.

It’s a veritable smorgasbord. Pick the party that has enough you like, and just vote for them? Of course, it’s not that easy. We know that not all promises are kept. Remember Justin Trudeau on electoral reform. We know that not all promises are fully explained. Andrew Scheer’s tax cuts are phased in so the maximum benefit comes only after three years. And the cost of that promise alone is $6 billion, which has to be paid for by someone — who might that be?

A big problem with many of the promises made to date is that the parties haven’t explained fully — in some cases not at all — how they will pay for their promises. That’s a critical part of understanding how parties will govern if elected. And it’s not always just about balanced budgets or deficits. It’s also about what things — like government services and support — get sacrificed in order for promises to be kept.

All smorgasbords end the same way. There’s a bill to pay. We can all stand to be reminded of that. (Hamilton Spectator)