Seduction Spa

Canada may drop oil emissions cap as part of new climate plan, sources say

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
15,305
2,656
113
Ghawar
September 12, 2025

  • Canada considers scrapping oil emissions cap for climate strategy
  • Alberta must commit to emissions reduction for cap removal
  • Oil sector's emissions rise, risking climate goals by 2030


Canada's government is in discussions with energy companies and the oil-producing province Alberta about eliminating a federal cap on emissions from the country's oil and gas sector if the industry and province reduce their carbon footprint in other ways, three sources with knowledge of the talks said.

Canada's emissions cap has not yet been implemented through legislation. But the prospect of it has been broadly condemned by Canadian oil and gas companies who have said it will force them to cut production.

Prime Minister Mark Carney, who won the April election promising to protect Canada's economy from U.S. tariffs, has faced some criticism for stepping away from his Liberal Party's previous emphasis on the environment.

His government's tone has changed significantly from a few weeks ago, sources said, adding officials had until recently suggested the emissions cap would stay in place. The sources were not authorized to speak publicly about the discussions.

Carney said during the election campaign he would keep the emissions cap, which is not scheduled to take effect until 2030. His predecessor, Justin Trudeau, published draft regulations for the cap in November.

The sources said the current talks could lead to the emissions cap being scrapped as part of a broader new "climate competitiveness strategy," which the federal government aims to unveil later this autumn.

GOVERNMENT REVIEWING FEEDBACK ON CAP

Carney's office referred Reuters to the federal Environment Department, which said the government is reviewing feedback on the emissions cap.

While mechanisms like caps can play a role in building a future that reduces emissions, "we are not going to get there through regulation alone," an Environment Department spokesperson said in a statement.

"Canada’s new government is committed to climate policy that is unifying, credible, and predictable; that reduces emissions, drives investment, and builds the economy of the future," the statement said.

Canada's Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson declined to discuss details of the negotiations, but said in an interview on Thursday the federal government is committed to delivering clean and conventional energy in an environmentally responsible way.

"Our government is focused on results, not how we get there," Hodgson said.

Any move to eliminate the cap would be contingent on Alberta and the oil sector making renewed, serious commitments to emissions reduction, including, but not limited to, moving ahead with the Pathways carbon capture and storage project, two of the sources said.

Canada's new climate competitiveness strategy will focus on "results over objectives and investments over prohibition," Carney said this week at a meeting of the ruling Liberal Party in Edmonton.

Oil and gas is Canada's highest-emitting industry, and its emissions continue to rise due to rising production in the country's oil sands region.

Ottawa will likely fall short of its international climate commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions by 40-45% from 2005 levels by 2030 unless the oil and gas sector intensifies efforts to decarbonize.

"It would be a tragic mistake for the Liberal government to back off on climate action while wildfires are still burning across this country," Greenpeace Canada strategist Keith Stewart said.

Under the terms of the cap, the federal government would require its oil and gas sector to cut emissions to 137 million metric tons, 37% below 2022 levels, by 2030.

Carney promised to make Canada the "world's leading energy superpower," forging ahead with clean energy development while making the conventional oil and gas sector more competitive.

He has also sought to mend federal relations with Alberta, which under Trudeau had become increasingly rocky due to that government's heavy focus on environmental issues.

Canadian oil and gas companies have repeatedly said other Trudeau-era legislation, including a ban on oil tankers off British Columbia's north coast, must be repealed to significantly jump-start private investment.

 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
15,305
2,656
113
Ghawar
Imbecile climate sheeple who voted the Liberals will tell you
dropping oil emission cap is good for Earth's climate future.
The Liberals can always blame the oil industry for not producing
low-emission or zero-emission oil.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
25,522
3,415
113
Imbecile climate sheeple who voted the Liberals will tell you
dropping oil emission cap is good for Earth's climate future.
The Liberals can always blame the oil industry for not producing
low-emission or zero-emission oil.
The cap can be removed but the price will still stay, perhaps Pathways solves the emissions problem. In case you somehow misunderstood the comment, they still want cleaner oil production but are expanding the dialog to other solutions.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
15,305
2,656
113
Ghawar
Emission reduction can be achieved without emission cap
imposed on oil and other sectors of industry. Just tell climate
sheeple across the country to drive less or better to give
up their ICE cars and switch to public transport. Banning
the filthy rich from flying private jets could help rally
the general public to join the fight against the impending
climate catastrophe.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,850
4,300
113
Emission reduction can be achieved without emission cap
imposed on oil and other sectors of industry. Just tell climate
sheeple across the country to drive less or better to give
up their ICE cars and switch to public transport.

its been tried
did not work
Canada has 9.985 million km²

Banning
the filthy rich from flying private jets could help rally
the general public to join the fight against the impending
climate catastrophe.
who would pay liberal leaders $1000 a plate @ their fund raisers
AI Overview

The Trudeau Foundation saw a significant increase in donations between 2015 and 2016, with foreign donations jumping ten-fold and overall donations increasing four-fold
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,850
4,300
113
Yes, because we subsidize oil instead of EV's and charging stations.
Canada gives the oil$gas industry $29 billion.

If we spent half that on EV's and charging station we'd be there in a few years.

you are wrong and you are delusional

time to wake up
evs and renewables are NOT going to displace fossil fuels in any meaning fraction
1757824197676.jpeg
you have been shown the hard cold facts of the matter many times however you just ignore the facts of the matter and continue to try and mislead others

your so called subsidies are generally legitimate tax deductions for investing capital for economic growth
deductions allowed to ALL profitable Canadian companies

some of the so called subsidies are some wacked environuts dream estimate of climate costs

the real subsidy waste is the money pit that is renewable energy scams

Clean energy isn’t clean
Wind turbines and solar panels don’t grow on trees

1757824707033.png



Increased demands for materials leads to the first major impact: Wind and solar require massive increases in mining.

“Global mining today already accounts for about 40 percent of worldwide industrial energy use” Mills wrote. But “renewable plans proposed or underway will require from 400 percent to 8,000 percent more mining for dozens of minerals, from copper and nickel, to aluminum, graphite, and lithium.” The energy system “is dominated by hydrocarbons, and will be for decades,” Mills told the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April.

After the materials are mined, the wind turbines and solar panels must be manufactured. Construction materials—steel, glass and concrete—are produced in energy and emissions-intensive industries (cement/concrete and steel production account for 7% each of global CO2 emissions). The industry relies on iron smelting, cement kilns, petrochemical feedstocks and fuels for plastics and fiberglass. Fossil fuels are also needed to power ships, trucks and construction equipment, as well as providing lubricants for gearboxes on turbines.

In 2021, wind and solar combined to produce less than 5% of total U.S. primary energy. But President Biden has targeted “achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050.”

“If wind turbines were to supply half the world’s electricity,” explains Mills, “nearly 2 billion tons of coal [around one quarter of all global coal use] would have to be consumed to produce the concrete and steel, along with 1.5 billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades.”

Economic and environmental damages aren’t the only problems with wind and solar power. There’s a third problem of moral cleanliness. Around half of the world’s polysilicon, a key ingredient in solar cells, is made in Xinjiang, China, where Uyghur Muslims are enslaved to produce it.

The majority of the world’s cobalt (over 70% in 2021) is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cobalt is essential to manufacture the batteries that will be needed to provide backup for wind and solar and to power electric vehicles.

“As of 2022, there is no such thing as a clean supply chain of cobalt from the Congo. All cobalt sourced from the DRC is tainted by various degrees of abuse, including slavery, child labor, forced labor, debt bondage, human trafficking, hazardous and toxic working conditions, pathetic wages, injury and death, and incalculable environmental harm,” Siddharth Kara wrote in his shocking exposé Cobalt Red.

I don’t know about you, but I prefer my energy, metals and minerals to be produced by well-paid roughnecks and miners under strict labor and environmental regulations rather than extracted under compulsion by poverty-stricken Congolese children or enslaved Uyghurs.

Finally, wind turbines and solar panels don’t last forever. Solar and wind energy sources are said to last an average of 25 years (though in practice, wind is often “repowered” after a median of only 10 years). As a result, the process of extraction and production is renewed in half the time, as the old panels and turbines must be disposed of.

“Clean” energy waste is nothing to scoff at, either. Many of the materials used to manufacture solar panels can be toxic, and if disposed of improperly, they can leach into drinking water.

Similarly, wind power will create “over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades,” according to Mills. “When the 20 wind turbines that constitute just one small 100-MW wind farm wear out, decommissioning and trashing them will lead to fourfold more nonrecyclable plastic trash than all the world’s (recyclable) plastic straws combined. There are 1,000 times more wind turbines than that in the world today.”

Both wind turbines and solar panels are coated with PFAS sealants. PFAS-covered waste in landfills has a record of leaching into groundwater. The Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a pollution limit of these “forever chemicals” of four parts per trillion. That limit is almost certainly far too stringent to be reasonable, but if the administration is serious, it will need to hold wind and solar to a special, more lenient standard than other forms of electricity generation.

So is using wind and solar any better than burning fossil fuels? This is a false dichotomy. Wind and solar energy infrastructure would not exist without the fossil fuels needed to manufacture it. And the intermittency of wind and solar means “that some of the renewable advantage of ‘clean energy’ is offset by extra gas burned inefficiently as backup,” wrote Meredith Angwin in her book “Shorting the Grid.”

“Do not be fooled by the idea that a high renewable percentage is the most virtuous form of grid,” Angwin wrote.

This is especially the case if the grid isn’t stable. If green virtue is obtained only by ceasing the use of fossil fuels, renewables are entirely virtue-free.


Wind and solar simply shift fossil fuel usage from the electric generation portion of the life cycle toward the more inefficient backup role and increased use manufacture and disposal.

Recent data reported by nonprofit Environmental Progress show that because China powers its solar industry with coal, it’s quite likely that solar ends up more carbon-intensive than carbon-capture-aided natural gas.

Ostensibly clean wind and solar are “critically dependent on specific fossil energies,” according to scientist and policy analyst Vaclav Smil. “We have no nonfossil substitutes that would be readily available on the requisite large commercial scales.”

While nuclear offers a form of genuinely clean, scalable electricity generation, it’s nigh-impossible to build in the U.S.

In the end, wind and solar aren’t “clean” by environmentalists’ own standards. If environmentalists were to scrutinize wind and solar as much as fossil and nuclear power, they might find the benefits of the energy transition outweighed by its costs.

Joshua Antonini is a research analyst in energy and environmental policy at the Mackinac Center.
 
Last edited:

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
25,522
3,415
113
But with Natural Gas generation, you will be using VAST amounts of NG for the entire life of the plant.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
100,920
28,023
113
you are wrong and you are delusional

time to wake up
evs and renewables are NOT going to displace fossil fuels in any meaning fraction
View attachment 484007
you have been shown the hard cold facts of the matter many times however you just ignore the facts of the matter and continue to try and mislead others

your so called subsidies are generally legitimate tax deductions for investing capital for economic growth
deductions allowed to ALL profitable Canadian companies

some of the so called subsidies are some wacked environuts dream estimate of climate costs

the real subsidy waste is the money pit that is renewable energy scams

Clean energy isn’t clean
Wind turbines and solar panels don’t grow on trees

View attachment 484009



Increased demands for materials leads to the first major impact: Wind and solar require massive increases in mining.

“Global mining today already accounts for about 40 percent of worldwide industrial energy use” Mills wrote. But “renewable plans proposed or underway will require from 400 percent to 8,000 percent more mining for dozens of minerals, from copper and nickel, to aluminum, graphite, and lithium.” The energy system “is dominated by hydrocarbons, and will be for decades,” Mills told the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April.

After the materials are mined, the wind turbines and solar panels must be manufactured. Construction materials—steel, glass and concrete—are produced in energy and emissions-intensive industries (cement/concrete and steel production account for 7% each of global CO2 emissions). The industry relies on iron smelting, cement kilns, petrochemical feedstocks and fuels for plastics and fiberglass. Fossil fuels are also needed to power ships, trucks and construction equipment, as well as providing lubricants for gearboxes on turbines.

In 2021, wind and solar combined to produce less than 5% of total U.S. primary energy. But President Biden has targeted “achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050.”

“If wind turbines were to supply half the world’s electricity,” explains Mills, “nearly 2 billion tons of coal [around one quarter of all global coal use] would have to be consumed to produce the concrete and steel, along with 1.5 billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades.”

Economic and environmental damages aren’t the only problems with wind and solar power. There’s a third problem of moral cleanliness. Around half of the world’s polysilicon, a key ingredient in solar cells, is made in Xinjiang, China, where Uyghur Muslims are enslaved to produce it.

The majority of the world’s cobalt (over 70% in 2021) is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cobalt is essential to manufacture the batteries that will be needed to provide backup for wind and solar and to power electric vehicles.

“As of 2022, there is no such thing as a clean supply chain of cobalt from the Congo. All cobalt sourced from the DRC is tainted by various degrees of abuse, including slavery, child labor, forced labor, debt bondage, human trafficking, hazardous and toxic working conditions, pathetic wages, injury and death, and incalculable environmental harm,” Siddharth Kara wrote in his shocking exposé Cobalt Red.

I don’t know about you, but I prefer my energy, metals and minerals to be produced by well-paid roughnecks and miners under strict labor and environmental regulations rather than extracted under compulsion by poverty-stricken Congolese children or enslaved Uyghurs.

Finally, wind turbines and solar panels don’t last forever. Solar and wind energy sources are said to last an average of 25 years (though in practice, wind is often “repowered” after a median of only 10 years). As a result, the process of extraction and production is renewed in half the time, as the old panels and turbines must be disposed of.

“Clean” energy waste is nothing to scoff at, either. Many of the materials used to manufacture solar panels can be toxic, and if disposed of improperly, they can leach into drinking water.

Similarly, wind power will create “over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades,” according to Mills. “When the 20 wind turbines that constitute just one small 100-MW wind farm wear out, decommissioning and trashing them will lead to fourfold more nonrecyclable plastic trash than all the world’s (recyclable) plastic straws combined. There are 1,000 times more wind turbines than that in the world today.”

Both wind turbines and solar panels are coated with PFAS sealants. PFAS-covered waste in landfills has a record of leaching into groundwater. The Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a pollution limit of these “forever chemicals” of four parts per trillion. That limit is almost certainly far too stringent to be reasonable, but if the administration is serious, it will need to hold wind and solar to a special, more lenient standard than other forms of electricity generation.

So is using wind and solar any better than burning fossil fuels? This is a false dichotomy. Wind and solar energy infrastructure would not exist without the fossil fuels needed to manufacture it. And the intermittency of wind and solar means “that some of the renewable advantage of ‘clean energy’ is offset by extra gas burned inefficiently as backup,” wrote Meredith Angwin in her book “Shorting the Grid.”

“Do not be fooled by the idea that a high renewable percentage is the most virtuous form of grid,” Angwin wrote.

This is especially the case if the grid isn’t stable. If green virtue is obtained only by ceasing the use of fossil fuels, renewables are entirely virtue-free.


Wind and solar simply shift fossil fuel usage from the electric generation portion of the life cycle toward the more inefficient backup role and increased use manufacture and disposal.

Recent data reported by nonprofit Environmental Progress show that because China powers its solar industry with coal, it’s quite likely that solar ends up more carbon-intensive than carbon-capture-aided natural gas.

Ostensibly clean wind and solar are “critically dependent on specific fossil energies,” according to scientist and policy analyst Vaclav Smil. “We have no nonfossil substitutes that would be readily available on the requisite large commercial scales.”

While nuclear offers a form of genuinely clean, scalable electricity generation, it’s nigh-impossible to build in the U.S.

In the end, wind and solar aren’t “clean” by environmentalists’ own standards. If environmentalists were to scrutinize wind and solar as much as fossil and nuclear power, they might find the benefits of the energy transition outweighed by its costs.

Joshua Antonini is a research analyst in energy and environmental policy at the Mackinac Center.
The argument that renewables aren't clean is an attempt at greenwashing. The argument is that switching to EV's will put less CO2 into the air not end all pollution.
Batteries get better, cheaper and cleaner each year, oil and gas remains as dirty and gets more expensive every year.

You once stated that if climate change is happening then supporting the oil$gas industry would be the greatest crime against humanity, yet here you are still.
You can't defend your ideas and theories and ignore the reality that its happening and it will drastically screw over humanity.

Yes, wind and solar requires the use of resources but will also not screw the planet nearly as much and take all the power away from oil despots like Russia and Saudi Arabia.


 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,850
4,300
113
You once stated that if climate change is happening then supporting the oil$gas industry would be the greatest crime against humanity, yet here you are still.
You can't defend your ideas and theories and ignore the reality that its happening and it will drastically screw over humanity.
#1 you misquote me- stop doing that
#2 climate change has always happened, and expected to continue
#3 CO2 is not the control knob for our exceptionally complex climate

Yes, wind and solar requires the use of resources but will also not screw the planet nearly as much and take all the power away from oil despots like Russia and Saudi Arabia.
no
are you completely stunned?
renewables are a non starter because of the materials requirement
they are not going to replace fossil fuels

it is not going to happen


this is telling
take all the power away from oil despots like Russia and Saudi Arabia
it is all about power allocation for you

the truth of the matter is you view the climate change scam as a back door to world wide socialism
sorry, you need to try to achieve that nightmare via the ballot box
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
100,920
28,023
113
#1 you misquote me- stop doing that
#2 climate change has always happened, and expected to continue
#3 CO2 is not the control knob for our exceptionally complex climate
#1 - then clarify your statement or I'll keep posting it as I remember
#2 - thermal maximums happened before but that doesn't mean its ok to make one happen again
#3 - your claim about CO2 is idiotic and you know it, if your theory was correct the planet wouldn't be 1.5ºC warmer right now

no
are you completely stunned?
renewables are a non starter because of the materials requirement
they are not going to replace fossil fuels

it is not going to happen
its already happened, larue.
Your numbers are 20 years old.


 
Toronto Escorts