Specifically I wonder how the federal government intends to justify an “environmental” law in court if, based on its own analysis, the proposed regulations are expected to have essentially no ameliorative effect on the environment.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) begins:
There is an urgent need to address climate change and move towards a low-carbon economy. Canada is committed to doing its part to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), the major contributor to climate change. … [D]ecreasing emissions in the oil and gas sector by introducing a regulatory emissions cap is necessary for the sector to do its share to tackle climate change and reach the Government of Canada’s GHG emissions reduction targets.
Under the Paris Agreement, the RIAS says, Canada committed to reducing GHG emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. But once you scroll past huge tracts of verbosity you get to this informative table, preceded by the admission that the proposed regulations “are expected to enable Canadian production to grow in response to global demand.”
What I understand from this information (PJ = petajoules) is that it is the federal government’s own evidence that the cumulative effect of these Regulations will be a 16% increase in oil and gas production by 2032, whereas without the Regulations there would be a 17% increase in oil and gas production by 2032.
In other words, and I invite correction if I’m wrong here, the expected value of the proposed regulations is a -0.7% change from baseline production levels, eight years down the road. In still other words, with or without the regulations the outcome is significantly increased production compared to 2019, which I am quite willing to bet was already significantly increased compared to 2005.
How is this doing the “necessary” and “urgent” work of reducing emissions? Of course people are pissed. Oil and gas people are understandably pissed because it wastes their time and money and subjects them to essentially pointless oversight. Environmentalists including Steven Guilbeault should be pissed because the entire scheme seems demonstrably unrelated to meeting international commitments and improving air quality.
Which brings me back to my original question: how do you legally justify an environmental law that is expected, in advance, to do so little to improve the environment? What is the constitutional analysis of the scheme’s “pith and substance” when the federal government’s own evidence about its expected environmental impact is so weak?
In my opinion, the pith and substance is to look like they’re doing something significant, to trick people concerned about the future of life on the planet, while doing very little to restrict oil and gas companies from the extraction and pollution they were planning to do anyway. Paperwork and propaganda.
Pith and substance
I continue to think about the proposed Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulations, as Alberta plans an objection under its Sovereignty Act.
Specifically I wonder how the federal government intends to justify an “environmental” law in court if, based on its own analysis, the proposed regulations are expected to have essentially no ameliorative effect on the environment.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) begins:
Under the Paris Agreement, the RIAS says, Canada committed to reducing GHG emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. But once you scroll past huge tracts of verbosity you get to this informative table, preceded by the admission that the proposed regulations “are expected to enable Canadian production to grow in response to global demand.”
What I understand from this information (PJ = petajoules) is that it is the federal government’s own evidence that the cumulative effect of these Regulations will be a 16% increase in oil and gas production by 2032, whereas without the Regulations there would be a 17% increase in oil and gas production by 2032.
In other words, and I invite correction if I’m wrong here, the expected value of the proposed regulations is a -0.7% change from baseline production levels, eight years down the road. In still other words, with or without the regulations the outcome is significantly increased production compared to 2019, which I am quite willing to bet was already significantly increased compared to 2005.
How is this doing the “necessary” and “urgent” work of reducing emissions? Of course people are pissed. Oil and gas people are understandably pissed because it wastes their time and money and subjects them to essentially pointless oversight. Environmentalists including Steven Guilbeault should be pissed because the entire scheme seems demonstrably unrelated to meeting international commitments and improving air quality.
Which brings me back to my original question: how do you legally justify an environmental law that is expected, in advance, to do so little to improve the environment? What is the constitutional analysis of the scheme’s “pith and substance” when the federal government’s own evidence about its expected environmental impact is so weak?
In my opinion, the pith and substance is to look like they’re doing something significant, to trick people concerned about the future of life on the planet, while doing very little to restrict oil and gas companies from the extraction and pollution they were planning to do anyway. Paperwork and propaganda.
And then federal Liberals are confused when people don’t want to vote for them, failing to see this as a direct consequence of their ineffectuality, expecting a $250 bribe to “working Canadians” (but not the income-less) to paper over the gap between their rhetoric and their actions.
It doesn’t.