FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Jul 3

Trump’s Current Energy Policies Just Don’t Make Sense

by bcurry

There is no more clean and renewable federal energy support in the U.S.as a result of Donald Trump’s most recent policy actions.  In his first term as president, he imposed tariffs on imported solar panels, whereby American companies opened or announced plans for new U.S. solar panel factories, thereby reviving a manufacturing business that had largely withered away.  Now, those same companies, particularly in solar manufacturing, are concerned that the attack on clean energy, especially solar and wind, and increasing support for fossil fuels will mean a potential disaster for the continued growth of the industry.  Indeed, it has been reported that Mike Carr, the executive director of Solar Energy Manufacturers for America, concluded that the administration’s policies would give the entire solar manufacturing industry over to China starting in 2027.  The shift has been particularly jarring in Texas and other Sun Belt states.  For example, renewable energy companies had announced plans for $64 billion in new investments in Texas, mostly for solar and battery storage projects, when Washington passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. 

On the other hand, the oil and gas industry is counting on the administration’s help to keep oil and gas prices higher in order to increase exploration and lower fracking costs, and subsequently their profits.  With a strong desire not to offend the president, one has to remember that the oil and gas industry apparently spent more than $75 million to elect Trump.  Interestingly, the U.S. also relies heavily on Canadian oil in particular, which American refineries combine with domestic crude to make gasoline and diesel fuel.  For this reason, there is much industry anxiety around the tariffs on Canadian oil currently set at 10 percent.  This and cross border pipeline discussions will certainly dominate trade talks between the two countries.

Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency — paired with other executive orders — amounts to a promise to test the limits of presidential power to ensure demand for fossil fuels, including coal, remains robust.  It’s a sharp reversal from his predecessor’s agenda, which aimed to push the nation away from fuels that are primarily responsible for climate change.  In addition, Trump’s efforts to support coal during his first term were no match for cheap natural gas that ultimately out competed coal in the market.  U.S. coal consumption reportedly declined more than a third during Trump’s first term.  Coal extraction is clearly no longer economically viable.

Studies have also shown that any restrictions on renewable development would increase electricity prices over the next decade in both Canada and the U.S., and potentially leave thousands of homes without electricity during extreme weather events.  For this reason, Canada is continuing to promote the expansion of clean energy, including that produced by nuclear and wind and solar.  On the other hand, the demand for electricity continues to increase due to new high tech needs, including those related to transportation and artificial intelligence.  Canada, unlike the U.S. under President Trump, is still committed to tackling the adverse effects of climate change by attempting to lessen our reliance on fossil fuels and by reducing our green house emissions.

Solar energy and wind power are much more capable of having electricity provided in a more decentralized and efficient way by being located closer to the sources of need, without the requirement for costly long-distance transmission infrastructure.  This more mobile asset can reduce the initial costs of electricity production and in turn the costs of delivery to consumers.  Not surprisingly, the current shift has been particularly jarring in Texas, a Republican state and the nation’s top wind power producer, second only to California in solar energy and industrial battery storage.  Moreover, the Trump administration’s energy policies just don’t make sense, adding to the inflationary cost of electricity for consumers and to the costs associated with the evident extreme consequences of climate change.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump Economy Energy New Technologies Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Technological Change Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
Nov 18

For Some Reason, We Don’t Talk Enough About ‘Methane’ as a Greenhouse Gas

by bcurry

In 2021, a headline about global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) read: “CO₂ reaches its highest level in more than 4 million years.”  However, the more potent greenhouse gas ‘methane’ is not given as much media attention as CO₂.

If it escapes into the atmosphere before being burned, as the main component of natural gas, methane can warm the planet more than 80 times as much as the same amount of CO₂ over a 20-year period.  Recent data from the European Union show Canada is the only G7 country where methane emissions have increased since 1990, although the rate of increase is slowing.  Studies suggest the amount of methane released is probably underestimated.

2021 was a big year for energy markets as indicated by increases in natural gas prices. Natural gas production has more than doubled this year in many parts of the world.  In addition, in Canada there are substantial or potential deposits of shale gas in all provinces and territories except Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Nunavut.  To get at shale gas, one has to use a process known as “fracking”.  Fracking involves injecting chemicals under high pressure into drilled wells to fracture geological formations below and allow for the release of larger quantities of both crude oil and natural gas.  In the last 20 years, large-scale commercial production of much deeper shale-gas reservoirs has become possible with new drilling techniques that combine two different technologies — horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing. This process involves drilling the gas well vertically from the surface before bending it at a certain depth to penetrate the shale-gas layer horizontally or diagonally.  However, like standard natural gas drilling, the fracking process also releases methane as a byproduct.  It has been found that flares, used to dispose of unwanted methane from wells, burn off far less than the 98 percent of the gas they are assumed to.  Fracking in Canada and the U.S. now involves hundreds of new sites every year.

A recent survey of oil and gas facilities in Canada found widespread methane releases. Satellite imagery saw giant plumes of the gas escaping landfills, and a cloud of methane was detected over a natural gas field in Canada.  It identified a hidden source of pollution from one of North America’s most prolific production basins along the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary.  However, on a broader scale, satellites can have difficulty tracking offshore emissions and releases in higher latitudes.  In the U.S., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data from 2019 includes emissions from drilling and fracking sites, but excludes emissions from offshore drilling, as well as some parts of the oil and gas supply chain like pipelines or processing plants.  As noted by recent research, the official data is likely to greatly underestimate actual emissions from oil and gas production, in part because it does not properly account for leaks from equipment, which can be a significant source of emissions.  As well, poorly maintained sites often mean more leaks that go undetected for longer, making them highly polluting.

Today, questions over just how much methane Canada pumps into the atmosphere come as the federal government expands regulation of the gas.  Canada is now developing regulations that would apply to all natural gas facilities, minimize use of flares, ensures those that exist work properly, increase inspection and require equipment upgrades.  The new rules are to include comprehensive, consistent emission monitoring and reporting.  The Biden administration is in the process of reinstating methane regulations relaxed by President Donald Trump.

Overall, it would appear that the oil and gas industry does not do as much monitoring of methane gas releases as it appears to do for CO₂.  There is little doubt that to deal with related environmental concerns, both industry and governments have to do a much better job of controlling widespread methane releases.  For whatever reason, this critical greenhouse gas fell off the radar.  With the evident continuing reliance on natural gas for heating and electricity production in North America, there is an immediate need to get a better handle on monitoring and release controls.  Moreover, methane emissions from leaking wells could far outweigh the benefit from replacing other fuels when it comes to our fragile environment.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Oil and Gas Oil and Gas US

Leave a comment »
Jun 5

Weapons Sales by Canada and the U.S. Complicit in Supporting War Crimes by Saudi Arabia

by bcurry

Saudi Arabia and its regional allies, mainly the United Arab Emirates, entered the Yemeni government’s war against the Houthi rebels in 2015, and began a wide-ranging aerial bombing campaign involving more than 150 airstrikes on civilian targets in Yemen.  The United Nations calls the situation in Yemen the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, as it is estimated that the war with Yemen has killed more than 230,000 people as a result of the fighting or its indirect consequences, such as hunger and outbreaks of disease.  The war has pushed the impoverished Yemen to the brink of famine.  During this nearly decade-long war, both the U.S. and Canada fournished weapons, including F-15S/SA planes and Canadian-made light armoured vehicles (LAVs), artillery systems, and heavy machine guns.

In 2021, the Biden administration in 2021 announced an end to U.S. military support for “offensive operations” carried out by the Saudi-led coalition and suspended some munition sales.  However, aircraft maintenance contracts fulfilled by both the U.S. military and U.S. companies to coalition squadrons carrying out offensive missions have continued.  Canada’s military exports to Saudi Arabia actually increased in 2021, making the Saudi kingdom Canada’s top export destination for such goods after the U.S. —  64 percent of the total value of non-US military exports that year.  In 2020, a review was undertaken by the Canadian government of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, which concluded there was “no substantial risk” such transfers of military goods were “used to commit or facilitate violations of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, or gender-based violence”.  However, Amnesty International and Project Ploughshares have declared that the Canadian government’s review misinterpreted, or ignored, key pillars of the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty, an international agreement signed by Canada regulating the international trade in conventional arms.  Contrary to what the federal government has said, they believe that Canada continues to ignore its international obligations to the Arms Trade Treaty.  On the other hand, the U.S., under Donald Trump, dropped out of the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019 for obvious misplaced domestic reasons.

Despite the fact that both countries have supported the kingdom, there have recently been signs of discontent with Saudi actions in Yemen and human rights violations by the Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.  The murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey in 2018 by the Saudis did not help.  Nevertheless, we now have a planned trip by President Biden to Saudi Arabia to discuss increasing their production of oil, thereby helping his administration to lower gasoline prices in the U.S.  Although the U.S. helped diplomatically to arrange for a truce in the conflict between the Houthi in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, the horrendous damage was already done in both civilian casualties and infrastructure, including homes, hospitals and communication towers in Yemen.  Since 2015, human rights groups investigating the airstrikes on Yemen have identified more than 300 that violated or appeared to violate international law.  Even as early as March 2015, Internal State Department documents noted that U.S. officials worried that coalition airstrikes may have violated the rules of war.

While the world is paying close attention to possible war crimes by the Russians in Ukraine, countries such as the U.S. and Canada have been probably aided, through the provision of weapons to the Saudis and their allies, similar atrocities in Yemen.  In addition, within the kingdom of Saudi Arabia there are a number of alleged human rights issues, including the imprisonment of political activists.  However, these concerns have not been enough for the U.S. and Canada to cease their military support to the country.  One has to believe it’s more about the oil than it’s about the revenue from exports of military weapons and maintenance contracts.  Alas, there are no comparable bans on the export of oil from the region compared to existing European, U.S. and Canadian bans on the import of oil and gas from Russia.  Despite unresolved diplomatic disputes between the Saudis and both our countries, access to oil reserves unfortunately continues to drive our immediate foreign policies in the region.

Arms Trade Arms Trade Treaty Canada Foreign Policy Oil and Gas Oil and Gas The Middle East US

Leave a comment »
Dec 4

Although Climate Change Has Taken a Back Seat to the Pandemic, Today It’s Still a Major Issue

by bcurry

The annual cost of catastrophic weather disasters is rising sharply.  Meanwhile, Canada and the U.S. aren’t doing enough to prepare for future disasters.  In the last year we’ve seen severe storms, hurricanes, wildfires and major droughts across North America.  There is little scientific doubt that this is the result of climate change.  According to a recent report by the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, the costs of weather-related disasters equalled 5 to 6 percent of Canada’s annual economic growth since 2010, compared with an average of about 1 percent prior to that year.  Based largely on data from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, there were $14.5 billion (US$11.2 billion) of direct disaster-related costs from 2010 through 2019.  This is very likely an underestimation, particularly when indirect costs are taken into account.

Unfortunately, the current coronavirus pandemic has to a large extent put the issues surrounding climate change on the back burner for the time being.  Most experts would agree that, even without the pandemic, the bad news is that climate-change adaptation in Canada is far behind where it needs to be.  In addition, Canada still relies heavily on the fossil fuel industry as a major driver of its resource-based economy.  A number of studies have shown that the Canadian banking industry still invests heavily in the fossil fuel industry.  One recent study by the Rainforest Action Network notes that in the 4 1/2 years since the Paris agreement on climate change, fossil-fuel lending has grown at five major Canadian banks.  These banks provided more than $131 billion (Canadian) to oil and gas companies in 2019 alone.  Even the Export Development Canada, an arm’s-length federal agency that helps Canadian industry sell its products abroad, averaged about $10 billion (Canadian) a year in support for fossil fuels exports.

CEOs at Canada’s major banks may well pay lip service to reducing the carbon intensity of their investments and their support for green technologies, but the reality is that they have continued to greatly finance the fossil fuel industry.  Some have even promised to be carbon neutral by 2050, aligning themselves with Paris agreement targets.  However, their financial support significantly assists in investments related to exploration, production, refining, and transportation of fossil fuels — all of which contribute to Canada’s and to global carbon emissions.  Some will argue that it is the sole role of banks to make money and it is their primary responsibility to support the Canadian economy.  But at what cost? 

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Oil and Gas US

Leave a comment »
Oct 5

Can We Believe Canadian Political Parties on Promises to Deal with Climate Change?

by bcurry

During the current federal election in Canada, four of the major parties are each suggesting that they have the answer when it comes to dealing with the issue of climate change. Years ago, Canada under a Conservative government signed onto the Paris Climate Accord. An assertion was made that Canada would reach certain reductions in carbon emissions by 2020. Recent studies have shown that this won’t happen.  The current Liberal government did introduce a tax on fossil fuel usage and greenhouse emissions, but is facing several court battles spearheaded by several Conservative provincial governments.  While Canadians in polls tend to support tackling climate change as an important issue, they appear to not be willing to pay much in support of policies directed at the issue.  Especially where jobs are involved.

The recent demonstrations held across Canada and the world highlighted the concerns of future generations about the impact of climate change and the abysmal efforts of countries to seriously address the issue. One could not help but admire the anger of today’s youth over the lack of real progress in reducing carbon emissions globally and our continuing reliance on fossil fuels.  Indeed, in Canada, it didn’t help that the federal government bought an oil and gas pipeline in the hope of completing its construction down the road. It is hoped that oil from the Alberta oil fields would be transported via the pipeline to the coast of British Columbia in order to be shipped to overseas markets. Somewhat hypocritical, yes!  Then you have the federal Green Party and New Democratic Party stating that they would cancel all pipeline construction, instead preferring to invest in green and alternative technologies.  Somewhat unrealistic, yes!  The Conservative Party’s environment platform is pretty much straight forward: kill the federal carbon tax.  However, its leader has little to offer in the Party’s proposed policies, given few details, timelines and costing.  Some Conservatives, like the Republicans in the U.S., still believe that climate change is a hoax.

All in all, the major federal parties are nowhere near meeting the foreseen needs associated with effectively tackling issues surrounding climate change. The Green Party which represents the main party with a holistic environmental agenda has little chance of ever forming the government.  However, should the October election result in a minority government, the Green Party could become a major player in supporting either the Liberals or Conservatives in forming the government.  Should this happen, then Canada may just have a national government willing to deal with the urgent issues concerning climate change and carbon emissions. Perhaps, this is what Canada needs at this crucial juncture in human history.

 

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Oil and Gas Transport of Oil US

Leave a comment »
Jun 3

Coal, Oil and Gas Are All Very Nice, But ……

by bcurry

Well, it looks like we’ve got a conundrum. On the one hand, everyone is increasingly concerned about climate change, while on the other hand cheap sources of coal, oil and natural gas keep popping up. However, while a hearty supply of coal, oil and natural gas provides cheap energy sources for now, eventually even these sources will become depleted. And then what? By the looks of it, certainly not renewable energy sources! What about seriously dealing with the ongoing impact of fossil fuel usage on the climate?

North Americans aren’t the only ones in this boat. Europeans, the Chinese, the Indians, and the rest of the developed world are rowing to the same tune. Much of the prognosis is being attributed to new technologies in drilling, in particular the recovery of shale oil and gas through a contentious process called “fracking”. In addition, new pipelines are expected to pop up all over the world, including those planned for between Russia and China and the U.S. and Canada. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities are also expected to expand in the U.S. and Canada in order to export natural gas to Asia and Europe. But at what environmental risks?

Oil and gas extraction and production is responsible for about a third of all carbon emissions, while the combustion engine releases about another third of pollutants. Alas, by 2030 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to cut power plant emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels. The EPA is particularly going after power plants, notably those electrical generation operations powered by coal — coal still producing almost 40 percent of electricity generation in the U.S. The new EPA proposal, if approved, will most likely force power plants to switch to natural gas or to seek out renewable or nuclear energy resources. Remember, the U.S. is currently the second largest contributor to global warming on the planet.

As for Canada, Environment Canada predicts that the country will fail to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, primarily because of the oilsands projects whose emissions are expected to triple. Regulations on Canada’s largest oil and gas emitters have yet to be released, seven years after they were first discussed. The federal government talks a good talk, but has failed to walk the walk.

The problem is that President Obama has to convince the states and the fossil fuel industry to reduce carbon emissions in line with national targets. Despite states such as Missouri and Illinois for example which continue to produce at least 80 percent of their electricity from coal. Prime Minister Stephen Harper believes that Canada doesn’t get enough credit given how hard it is to cut emissions from a system where much of the energy is already clean — namely hydroelectric power. The PM completely ignores the predicted increases in greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands and the potential environmental issues surrounding the expansion of pipelines to carry oilsands crude oil across Canada and into the U.S. Between Obama and Harper, when it comes to urgently dealing with fossil fuels, one gets a feeling of witnessing — excuse the expression — the blind leading the blind.

Canada Coal Keystone XL Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Transport of Oil US

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.