[ad_1]
News analysis
Federal government Discussion paper Analysts have taken the complexity of the “next step” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector, ignoring the potential for Canadian exports to indirectly reduce emissions elsewhere. It says it could put an additional burden on the industry.
Published on July 18, this paper is a cap-and-trade system under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that limits emissions from the energy sector or reduces emissions to federal government targets for mass emitters. We are proposing to raise carbon prices.
Kevin Beirne, an analyst at S & P Global Commodity Insights, says the industry can further reduce emissions, but it has already made significant progress.
“Improvements have been demonstrated … First and foremost, we are focusing on methane as a hanging fruit to drive some significant reductions. For the oil and gas sector to reach Canada’s goals. Are you on track — ambitious 42% reduction by 2030— It’s a much harder question to answer, “Bahn told The Epoch Times.
Stakeholders are required to submit a response to the federal proposal by September 30th. Birn states that it will delay investment in extracts that have already been compromised by volatile prices due to pipeline delays until the final policy is confirmed.
“It’s these pancake policies that are confusing. And is this the last policy, or is there another policy after that?”
Canada’s Ministry of the Environment has an oil and gas sector 27 percent However, in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, Burn says that domestic natural gas production is already well compared to its international peers in terms of its carbon emission intensity, and coal-fired power is still in use in many countries. It is said to be much better than a power plant. He believes that if federal regulations make the domestic energy sector uncompetitive, the consequences will be bad for the environment.
“Here’s a bigger and simpler question. How much does this contribute to global emissions? … You endanger carbon leaks. This takes into account the price of oil. Either artificially reduce production more than what is economically achieved, or reduce investment in the sector to the extent that its investment is redirected to elsewhere in the world. Both can happen. ” He says.
“Then, it stimulates economic activity elsewhere in the world to produce a barrel of oil. [there]— And these developments … are not always more efficient or low carbon than Canada. “
Ian Madsen, senior policy analyst at the Frontier Public Policy Center, called the proposal “punitive and restrictive,” saying that its impact on greenhouse gas emissions could range from “minor” to “opposite.” Stated. He says the oil and gas production ecosystem has many moving parts that need to be considered.
“Canadian heavy oil is essential to increase the gas oil bias in the shale formation-dominated oil and gas industry at US refineries. Their refineries are a major commercial producer without sufficient heavy oil. It is not possible to produce enough of the product gasoline. Similarly, optimal US refinery production is essential for the total production of the US shale layer to be commercially profitable. “Madsen said in an interview.
“This makes natural gas commercial and desirable for production, which will replace coal burning at power plants, which are exported to Japan, China and South Korea, as well as the United States. . And in Europe, coal is competing with gas, but now there is a shortage of gas because Russia has shut down water. “
According to Madsen, methane is the main component of natural gas, so the federal government’s goal of reducing methane production by 75% by 2030 could have dire consequences.
“Minimizing methane leaks is in the commercial interests of the oil and gas sector itself. It loses them money, but millions of dollars, if not billions. It makes no sense to spend money trying to achieve losses of thousands of cubic meters or less per year, “he said.
“Canada’s CO2 and CH4 (methane) emissions are superficially large compared to economic and per capita economies, but very small compared to China, and emissions from existing and planned coal. Is expected to increase significantly. Burning plants in China, India, and elsewhere in developing countries, as well as in the EU and Japan. “
Narrow focus
Mr Madsen says economic resistance from the proposed regulations will impede the necessary renewal of oil and gas supplies, thereby jeopardizing the production of plastics and fertilizers. “It’s important to make solar and wind power more reliable,” he added, adding that there are other areas that haven’t received enough attention in the energy sector, such as making energy storage technologies more affordable. I am saying.
“When it comes to alternative energy sources, mysteriously little attention is paid to ocean currents, tidal sources, and geothermal resources,” he says.
“Finally, little effort has been made to develop conventional and new modular nuclear power plants or to encourage other more exotic ideas such as hydrogen fusion.
Dan McTigg, an 18-year-old former Liberal Party member who became Canadian founder and president for affordable energy, said Canada’s climate policy endangered Europe’s energy security and led to protests. He told the Epoch Times that he had followed the same path.
“Is there a cure for such a dementia policy? It’s an obsession with envirouts that leads to an economic death wish. What’s happening in Europe is exactly what the women of Congress here want. That’s what it is, “McTig told The Epoch Times.
“I’m sure Canadians aren’t completely aware of what this involves,” he adds.
“To make matters worse, those who propose and impose this are unaffected by the reality that such an unjust move would take to permanently drive capital out of Canada. This policy is a catastrophic climate. The clearest evidence to date for technocrats who are willing to sacrifice the viability of the country in pursuit of delusions. “
follow
Lee Harding is a Saskatchewan-based journalist and think tank researcher and contributor to The Epoch Times.
[ad_2]