Canada

Canada’s New Greenwashing Law Hasn’t Stopped Politicians’ CCS Claims

Spread the love

Original article by Taylor Noakes republished from DeSmog.

Environment minister Steven Guilbeault championed carbon capture in a recent funding announcement. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Major companies have scrubbed references to carbon capture. Yet government officials continue to promote it.

While Canadian oil companies and their lobbyists have scrubbed mentions of carbon capture from their websites amid greenwashing concerns, Canadian government officials continue repeating unproven claims about the controversial technology.

Various government ministers, including environment minister Steven Guilbeault, have championed carbon capture (CCS) technology in recent press announcements and social media statements, despite mounting evidence CCS is not a viable climate change mitigation strategy.

It is in part because of the oil and gas industry’s allegedly misleading statements about CCS that the Canadian government introduced new anti-greenwashing amendments to the Competition Act. These new amendments provoked many Canadian oil and gas companies to remove environmental pledges and goals from their websites, including information about CCS. The Pathways Alliance, a consortium of Canadian tar sands oil producers that has been aggressively promoting a carbon capture project in Alberta, removed all content from their website on June 19 in anticipation of these new regulations. Pathways has since added some new content to their website, though there are far fewer details about the group’s interest in CCS.

In recent weeks, sitting ministers in the government of Canada have made several announcements or statements concerning carbon capture projects. In mid July, Strathcona Resources Ltd. announced it would enter into a partnership with the Canada Growth Fund — a public investment agency of Canada’s federal government — to split $2 billion CAD of new investments in CCS infrastructure for the company’s tar sands operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The joint funding may not actually be as equal as government and industry have indicated. According to Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate, with Environmental Defence Canada, Strathcona may not even cover half their capital costs,  given their expectation these costs will be covered by the federal CCS investment tax credit and other grants. Indeed, according to Strathcona’s press release concerning the project, the company that “Substantially all of Strathcona’s share of capital costs is expected to be recouped through the federal CCS investment tax credit and other grants.”

“The Government of Canada is providing yet another oil company with a massive handout,” said Levin in a statement to DeSmog.

“Almost exactly a year ago, the Government of Canada released new rules ending fossil fuel subsidies. Yet they continue to break their promise by providing billions of dollars to some of the wealthiest companies in Canada. Despite carbon capture’s terrible track record, governments keep subsidizing the technology.”

Despite these and other concerns from environmentalists and climate scientists about CCS, Canada’s environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, was particularly enthusiastic about the news, writing on social media that “it pays to put the tools in place that build a cleaner economy and a more sustainable future.”

Whether this is in fact the case — that investments in CCS will lead to either a cleaner economy or a more sustainable future — is an issue at the heart of the government’s new anti-greenwashing regulations. Environmental claims must be based on an adequate and proper test, according to the legislation, and the burden of proof lies with whoever makes the original claim.

If Guilbeault were representing a tar sands producer, rather than the government of Canada, he may have reconsidered his statement. Canadian tar sands producers removed similar claims from their websites in the days before the anti-greenwashing regulations went into effect June 20. Cenovus, a partner in the Pathways Alliance, removed a section of their website titled “Innovation: The gateway to sustainable advancements” that concerned carbon capture technology. DeSmog found 70 distinct URLs linking to the websites of Pathways members, or the website of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), that mentioned carbon capture that had been removed since the federal anti-greenwashing regulations took effect.

CCS studies shed some light on these sudden website deletions. A landmark Global Witness report from 2022 revealed Shell Canada’s Quest hydrogen project, which uses carbon capture, created more emissions than it sequestered. According to an International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) report from November of 2023, there are just 30 commercial CCS projects operating globally, capturing less than 0.2 percent of the emissions required to close the emissions gap by 2030. Moreover, a majority of the 149 CCS projects that were to be operational by 2020 were either cancelled or put on indefinite hold due to technological challenges or exceptionally high costs. 

Another IISD study found CCS is inconsistent with Canada’s net zero ambitions. It is expensive, slow to implement, energy intensive, and unproven at scale. Nearly all CCS projects are either being used for enhanced oil recovery, and irrespective of however much carbon dioxide is captured by the process, it has no positive impact whatsoever on downstream emissions.

“Carbon capture technology has failed to make a dent in reducing climate pollution, despite decades of subsidies,” said Environmental Defence’s Julia Levin. “It is a dangerous distraction driven by the same big polluters who have caused the climate emergency. Why should taxpayers be on the hook to pay for ineffective, unnecessary, and risky technology?” asked Levin.

There doesn’t appear to be any obligation for Canada’s environment minister to be held to the same standard as oil and gas companies when it comes to making claims about the effectiveness of carbon capture.

Canada’s natural resources minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, made similarly enthusiastic and unverifiable comments concerning carbon capture in a recent interview with the Globe and Mail. Wilkinson said that he believes 20 to 25 new carbon capture projects would break ground in Canada in the next decade. Wilkinson said this would likely be the case owing to a new federal government investment tax credit for carbon capture and storage projects, which could cover up to half the capital costs of new projects.

Wilkinson stated to the Globe and Mail that the new Shell Polaris CCS project was a direct result of the investment tax credit. 

Wilkinson’s statements on social media concerning the Strathcona project insinuated that the tax credit was helping companies achieve their net zero ambitions: “Canada’s new investment tax credits have helped companies move expeditiously to improve their competitiveness in a world that’s rapidly moving towards net-zero.” Wilkinson continued, insinuating that the Strathcona CCS project would work towards decarbonization, stating: “Strathcona Resources is innovating to seize the economic opportunity decarbonization presents and creating jobs now and into the future.”

When asked by the Globe and Mail for his thoughts on Pathways Alliance’s massive CCS proposal, Wilkinson was optimistic the project would be completed, and that “We are still working a little bit on the structure of that. But I do believe that it will move forward. There’s just a bit more work to do to finish the job.”

In May 2023, Pathways Alliance was the subject of an investigation by Canada’s Competition Bureau over allegations of false and misleading claims. The complaint was initiated by Greenpeace Canada. Pathways scrubbed its website of all content in advance of the new anti-greenwashing regulations, something Wilkinson told the Globe and Mail he thought was an over-reaction.

A study published by the journal Energy Research & Social Science in the spring of 2024 indicated “instances of selective disclosure and omission, misalignment of claim and action, displacement of responsibility, non-credible claims, specious comparisons, nonstandard accounting, and inadequate reporting,” in their analysis of Pathways’ advertising over a two-year period.

Original article by Taylor Noakes republished from DeSmog.

Continue ReadingCanada’s New Greenwashing Law Hasn’t Stopped Politicians’ CCS Claims

For decades, governments have subsidised fossil fuels. But why?

Spread the love
Sobrevolando Patagonia/Shutterstock

Bernard Njindan Iyke, La Trobe University

Even now, decades after we first began trying to avert the worst of global warming, more than 80% of the world’s total energy comes from fossil fuels.

You might think this would make fossil fuel production extremely profitable. But it’s not always the case. Much of the most accessible oil has already been extracted and burned. Many countries want to shore up domestic sources of fossil fuels to boost energy security. Energy price fluctuations and competition from new energy sources such as solar, wind and fossil gas have made it harder for some fossil fuel companies to make money, especially in coal.

This is where fossil fuel subsidies come in. Australia gave A$14.5 billion in subsidies to major fossil fuel producers and consumers in 2023–24 alone.

You might have wondered – why would some of the largest companies on Earth need subsidies? Here’s why.

LNG tanker
Australia’s surging liquefied natural gas industry has been boosted by government funding. KDS Photographics/Shutterstock

Private companies, public money

Globally, private companies dominate fossil fuel production, though fossil fuel-rich nations often have state-owned companies, such as Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and Russia’s Rosneft.

Why would governments give fossil fuel companies money? Many reasons. But the most important is that wealthy countries have historically needed huge volumes of fossil fuels for manufacturing, transport and power. Many countries have some sources of fossil fuels inside their borders, but only a few are self-sufficient. This has enabled fossil fuel giants such as Saudi Arabia to become wealthy beyond belief.

Many governments have used subsidies to boost their energy security and encourage local producers to seek out new sources of coal, gas and oil. These subsidies can make all the difference in making fossil fuel companies competitive internationally. For instance, Canada spent billions on subsidies to boost its oil sands and fracking projects.

Subsidies were essential in the United States’ fracking revolution. Novel approaches to extracting fossil gas and oil – boosted by major tax incentives – turned the US from a major importer of oil and gas into a net exporter by 2019.

You can see why the US did this. At a stroke, it went from being dependent on energy provided by foreign nations to being independent.

Once subsidies are in place, they become very hard to remove. Indonesia’s lavish fuel subsidies now account for 2% of the nation’s GDP. When the national government tried to walk these back, there were riots.

And there’s another reason, too. Fossil fuels are still playing an important role in boosting the economy in most nations. Subsidising them has long been seen as a way to maintain economic growth and stability.

Globally, these subsidies are estimated at a staggering $10.5 trillion each year.

This figure has grown sharply in recent years, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As European nations tried to wean themselves off Russia’s gas, energy prices surged worldwide. In response, some countries introduced new subsidies to support businesses and consumers.

The top-line figure of $10.5 trillion includes two types of subsidy – explicit (meaning real dollars change hands) and implicit (for example, governments building roads and railways to encourage crude oil transport).

Explicit subsidies

Explicit fossil fuel subsidies are direct financial incentives from governments to fossil fuel producers and consumers. These incentives come in different forms, such as tax breaks, direct payments, grants and price controls. All of them aim to reduce the financial burden associated with fossil fuel production and use.

In Australia, explicit subsidies include fuel tax credits and exploration tax reductions. Fossil fuel companies can get subsidies to offset the losses they make during the years it takes to find and begin extracting new fossil fuels.

In the US, oil and gas companies benefit from the oil depletion allowance, which permits them to deduct a percentage of their gross income from oil and gas sales as an expense. They can also claim tax deductions for intangible drilling costs, such as the wages of workers and material needed to find new sources of oil and gas.

China, too, uses direct subsidies, discounted land-use fees, and preferential loans as explicit subsidies to boost coal production and consumption. The national government also supports fossil fuel consumption through direct payments to consumers.

coal miners China
China has used subsidies to encourage exploitation of its large coal resources. zhaoliang70/Shutterstock

Implicit subsidies

Implicit subsidies are often described as “imaginary”. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, just that they’re not a direct transfer to directly paid to fossil fuel producers.

For instance, the cost of burning fossil fuels is borne by the global community and the natural world, in the form of climate change, damage to human health and other harms. Most fossil fuel companies don’t have to pay a cent for the pollution their products cause – so in effect, they are being granted an indirect subsidy.

Implicit incentives also include government investment in facilities such as transport networks, pipelines, oil refineries and port infrastructure, which will accelerate fossil fuel production and delivery. Think of the Middle Arm development in Darwin, funded by both the federal and territory government.

Why are these subsidies still being paid?

As the world grapples with a worsening climate crisis, fossil fuel subsidies are under great scrutiny.

It’s politically difficult to withdraw subsidies once given. This is why governments around the world have instead begun to give subsidies and tax incentives to green energy developers, including the enormous $500 billion Inflation Reduction Act in the US, the European Union’s Green Deal, and China’s massive subsidies of green technologies such as electric vehicles and solar panels.

The goal here is to make renewable energy and electrified transport steadily more affordable and competitive – just as fossil fuel subsidies did for oil, gas and coal.

Bernard Njindan Iyke, Lecturer in Finance, La Trobe University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingFor decades, governments have subsidised fossil fuels. But why?

93 Countries Back ICC Probe Into Israeli War Crimes in Gaza

Spread the love

Original article by JON QUEALLY republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Palestinian child, injured in the Israeli attack on Abu Aisha family house is taken to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, Gaza on June 14, 2024.
 (Photo by Ashraf Amra/Anadolu via Getty Images)

A joint statement calls on “all States to ensure full co-operation with the Court for it to carry out its important mandate of ensuring equal justice for all victims of genocide, war crimes, [and] crimes against humanity.”

Ninety-three nations on Friday, all them state parties to the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court, reiterated their support for the ICC as it assesses an application for arrest warrants of high level Israeli government officials accused of perpetrating war crimes in Gaza.

The 93 countries—including Canada, Bangladesh, Belgium, Ireland, Afghanistan, Costa Rica, Chile, Germany, France, Mongolia, Mexico, New Zealand, and scores of other—cited separate ICC statements defending its mandate for independence and upheld in their joint statement “that the Court, its officials and staff shall carry out their professional duties as international civil servants without intimidation.”

Though neither nation is named in the joint statement, both the United States and Israel have publicly condemned ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan for his May 20 arrest warrant applications for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” in the Gaza Strip.

Khan also submitted arrest warrants for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, and Ismail Haniyeh for their alleged roles in the October 7 attack on southern Israel. Following Khan’s announcement in May, U.S. President Joe Biden said, “Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

In April it was reported that the U.S. government was working behind the scenes to block the ICC from issuing any arrest warrants targeting Israel officials. Neither Israel nor the U.S. is party to the Rome Statute, though the United Nations has recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction over the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), where the alleged war crimes by the occupying power, Israel, took place.

After Khan made his application for warrants, White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said, “We’ve been really clear about the ICC investigation. We do not support it.” On June 4, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, along with 42 Democrats, passed a measure that would sanction ICC officials if the arrest warrants for any Israeli officials were approved or carried out.

Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, was among those who applauded Friday’s public statement.

Rajagapol thanked the signatory nations “for defending the ICC and standing up against the bullies, including the relics from the U.S. Senate whose idea of engaging with the world is to use threats,” a possible reference to Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) who denounced Khan’s applications as “outrageous,” applauded the House approval of sanctions, and vowed further punishment for the ICC.

Such punitive measures and high-profile threats directed at the ICC appeared to be the exact kind of intimidation Friday’s joint pledge of support is responding to.

“The ICC, as the world’s first and only permanent international criminal court, is an essential component of the international peace and security architecture,” the statement reads. “We therefore call on all States to ensure full co-operation with the Court for it to carry out its important mandate of ensuring equal justice for all victims of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression, grave crimes that threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world.”

With their show of unified support for the ICC and its mandate, the countries said they aim to “contribute to ending impunity for such crimes and preventing their recurrence while defending the progress we have made together to guarantee lasting respect for international humanitarian law, human rights, the of law and the enforcement of international criminal justice.”

Original article by JON QUEALLY republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

America Crawls Further Into Global Isolation by Backing Gaza Genocide

Why the Senate Must Reject the Dangerous Antisemitism Awareness Act

Despite Mainstream Headlines, Israel’s Tents Massacre Was Not a ‘Tragic Mistake’

The Nuseirat Massacre Shows How Israel and the West Devalue Palestinian Lives

Continue Reading93 Countries Back ICC Probe Into Israeli War Crimes in Gaza

Ahead of Treaty Negotiations, Hundreds March to ‘End the Plastic Era’

Spread the love

Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Frontline community members and environmental groups marched in Ottawa, Canada, on Sunday, April 21, 2024 to demand an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty.
 (Photo: Ben Powless/Survival Media Agency)

“As adults who come to Ottawa to negotiate the plastic treaty, you must protect our rights to live in a healthy and safe environment,” one young activists said.

Days before national delegates gather for the fourth and penultimate negotiations to develop a Global Plastics Treaty in Ottawa, Canada, around 500 Indigenous and community representatives, members of civil society and environmental groups, and experts and scientists gathered for a “March to End the Plastic Era” on Sunday.

The protesters, organized under the banner of Break Free From Plastic, called for a treaty that significantly reduces plastic production and centers the frontline communities most impacted by the plastics crisis.

“Delegates must act like our lives depend on it—because they do,” Daniela Duran Gonzales, senior legal campaigner with the Center for International Environmental Law, said in a statement. “Our climate goals, the protection of human health, the enjoyment of human rights, and the rights of future generations all rest on whether the future plastics treaty will control and reduce polymers to successfully end the plastic pollution crisis.”

“Short-sighted business interests must be out of the room because the only way to achieve equitable livelihoods is when we have a healthy planet.”

The official meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to craft a “international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment,” will run from April 23 to 29 in the Canadian capital.

Break Free From Plastic called the negotiations a “make or break” moment for the treaty, which is supposed to be completed in late 2024 in Busan, South Korean. However, civil society groups have expressed concern that oil-producing countries and the plastics industry will water down the agreement and steer it toward waste management and recycling, which has been revealed to be a false solution to plastic pollution knowingly promoted by the industry for decades.

The last round of negotiations concluded in late 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya, with little progress made after 143 fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists attended.

Salisa Traipipitsiriwat of Thailand, who is the senior campaigner and Southeast Asia plastics project manager for the Environmental Justice Foundation, said ahead of Sunday’s march that it was “crucial for world leaders to step up and put the people and planet at the forefront.”

“Short-sighted business interests must be out of the room because the only way to achieve equitable livelihoods is when we have a healthy planet,” Traipipitsiriwat added.

On Sunday, marchers gathered for a press conference at 10:30 am ET before marching at around 11:30 am from Parliament Hill to the Shaw Center, were negotiations will begin on Tuesday. Crowds began to disperse around 1:30 pm. Participants carried large banners with messages including, “End the plastic era,” “End multigenerational toxic exposure,” and pointing out that 99% of plastics came from fossil fuels. The gathering featured live music and art, including a giant tap pouring out plastics and a “Plastisaurus rex” with the message “Make single-use plastic extinct.”

(Photo: Break Free From Plastics)

“Now’s the time to be bold and push for a treaty that cuts plastic production and holds polluters accountable,” Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a pre-march statement. “I’m inspired to be joining so many advocates in Ottawa, standing up against the enormous harm the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are causing to people’s health and the planet. I hope to see countries showing ambition this week, and I urge them to remember what’s at stake for future generations.”

Civil society groups have compiled several demands for an ambitious and effective treaty. These are:

  1. Centering human rights, especially those of Indigenous communities, young people, and workers most impacted by plastic pollution;
  2. Protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples throughout the treaty process;
  3. Dealing with plastics across their entire lifecyle;
  4. Reducing production as a “nonnegotiable” part of the treaty;
  5. Eliminating toxic chemicals and additives from plastics;
  6. Bolstering reuse systems for plastics that are non-toxic;
  7. Prioritizing first prevention, then reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal when managing plastic waste;
  8. Ending “waste colonialism” by strengthening regulations for trading plastics;
  9. Guaranteeing a “just transition” for people employed across the plastics lifecycle;
  10. Including “non-party” provisions in the treaty;
  11. Establishing a mechanism to fund countries so they can fully implement the treaty; and
  12. Enshrining conflict-of-interest policies as a protection against plastics industry lobbying.

The coalition emphasized the need to tackle the problem of plastic from cradle to grave.

“Plastic doesn’t just become pollution when it’s thrown away,” said Jessica Roff, the U.S. and Canada plastics and petrochemicals program manager for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “Plastic is pollution, from the moment the fossil fuels are extracted from the ground to the eternity of waste it spawns.”

Chrie Wilke, global advocacy manager for the Waterkeeper Alliance, said “Clearly the crux of the plastic pollution crisis is too much plastic being produced. There is no way to recycle our way out of this. We must face the fact that plastic and petrochemicals, at current production levels, endanger waterways, communities, and fisheries across the globe. Cutting production and implementing non-plastic alternatives and reuse systems is essential.”

(Photo: Ben Powless/Survival Media Agency)

Activists also emphasized the environmental justice implications of plastic pollution, and how some communities and groups are more burdened than others, both from the dangers of the production process and from waste disposal.

“Children and youth like me suffer the most and are recognized as a vulnerable group,” said Aeshnina ‘Nina’ Azzahra, the founder of River Warrior Indonesia. “My playground and my future are at risk. We all want our environment to be plastic-free, but please don’t put your burden on the other side of the world—this is NOT fair. As adults who come to Ottawa to negotiate the plastic treaty, you must protect our rights to live in a healthy and safe environment.”

Jo Banner, co-founder and co-directer of The Descendants Project, said:”Frontline community members, such as myself, are participating in these treaty negotiations with heavy hearts as our communities back home are struggling with sickness and disease caused by the upstream production of plastic.”

“Although our hearts are heavy, they are full with passion urging negotiators to aim for an ambitious treaty that caps plastic production,” Banner added. “Areas such as my hometown, located in the heart of Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, need a strong treaty now. There is no more time to waste.”

Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Continue ReadingAhead of Treaty Negotiations, Hundreds March to ‘End the Plastic Era’

Complicit in genocide: where Israel gets its weapons from

Spread the love

Many articles from the Morning Star featured today. https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/complicit-genocide-where-israel-gets-its-weapons

Far from ‘standing alone’ Israel is fully supplied with military hardware from various Western and non-Western countries, writes RAMZY BAROUD

…

Though many of Israel’s traditional allies in the West are openly disowning its behaviour in Gaza, weapons from various Western and non-Western countries continue to flow, feeding the war machine as it, in turn, continues to harvest more Palestinian lives.

This compels the question: does Israel truly stand alone when its airports and seaports are busier than ever receiving massive shipments of weapons coming from all directions? Not in the least.

Almost every time a Western country announces that it has suspended arms exports to Israel, a news headline appears shortly afterwards, indicating the opposite. Indeed, this has happened repeatedly.

Last year, Rome had declared that it was blocking all arms sales to Israel, giving false hope that some Western countries were finally experiencing some kind of moral awakening.

Alas, on March 14, Reuters quoted the Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto as saying that shipments of weapons to Israel are continuing, based on the flimsy logic that previously signed deals would have to be “honoured.”

Another country that is also “honouring” its previous commitments is Canada, which announced on May 19, following a parliamentary motion, that it had suspended arms exports.

The celebration among those advocating an end to the genocide in Gaza were just getting started when, a day later, Ottawa practically reversed the decision by announcing that it, too, will honour previous commitments.

This illustrates that some Western countries, which continue to impart their unsolicited wisdom about human rights, women’s rights and democracy on the rest of the world, have no genuine respect for any of these values.

Canada and Italy are not the largest military supporters of Israel. The US and Germany are.

…

Many articles from the Morning Star featured today. https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/complicit-genocide-where-israel-gets-its-weapons

Continue ReadingComplicit in genocide: where Israel gets its weapons from