Blanchet should be careful for what he wishes

Bloc Quebecois Leader Yvesfrançois Blanchet's answer to the Alberta equalization referendum revealed a fundamental truth about what is driving the deep division in the country.

Last week, on the heels of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau singling out oil and natural gas for an emissions cap at the COP26 meetings in Glasgow, Blanchet “mockingly” pitched the idea of green equalization. “We propose green equalization, according to which, we calculate the average emissions of a jurisdiction in Canada. Those that are above this calculation, let's say Alberta, pays, and those that are under this average level receive the money because they perform well in terms of climate change.”

I decided to do the calculation to see how that would change the way we divvy up the $21-billion equalization pot. Based on 2019 data, Canada's average emissions were 730 megatonnes, or 19.4 tonnes per person. Alberta's emissions were the second highest at 63.1 tonnes per person (more than three times the average) and Quebec's were the lowest at 9.9 tonnes. Under “green” equalization, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta would all be net payers. But Ontario and B.C. (with 11.2 tonnes and 12.9 tonnes per person, respectively) would qualify for green equalization. In fact, because of its low emissions and high population, Ontario would receive the highest payment, which would substantially cut the shares to Quebec, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. Be careful what you wish for, Blanchet.

But this is the fault line in Canadian politics. Alberta is seen as a bad actor, while Quebec sees itself as virtuous.

Quebec just got a painful lesson that not everyone considers hydroelectric power “green.” A few years ago, research published in Bioscience found that hydroelectric power produces twice as much methane as natural lakes and ponds, due to rotting vegetation. More recently, residents of Maine rejected the construction of a 233-kilometre transmission line that would have brought 1,200 megawatts of power to New England. It was opposed by environmentalists, who were backed by natural gas/ solar/wind generator NextEra Energy because it would “permanently damage” Maine's north woods and impact tourism. The combatants spent $100 million on the fight.

So what is all this achieving, really?

Michael Shellenberger, environmentalist and author of Apocalypse Never, was the first to explain to me the historic role that competitors have played in bankrolling environmental activism. Author Rod Adams, author of A Century of War: Anglo-american Oil Politics and the New World Orders, traced the anti-nuclear movement back to oil baron Robert Anderson, who in 1970 contributed $200,000 to Friends of the Earth, which Adams wrote is “exhibit number one in my long-running effort to prove that the illogically tight linkage between `environmental groups' and `anti-nuclear groups' can be traced directly to the need for the oil and gas industry to discourage the use of nuclear energy.”

So, oil started the war by demonizing nuclear. Then hydroelectric power demonized oil and natural gas. Now, wind and solar are demonizing hydroelectric power.

We are even told now that solar and wind are the only answers.

I interviewed Greg Fagnan, CEO of Bluemarvel AI, and he pointed out the illogic of that. Consider: We shovel coal out of the side of a mountain in the Crowsnest Pass, truck it to the railway station, rail it to the coast, ship it to China, where it is railed and trucked to a solar plant, turned into solar panels, railed and trucked back to the coast, shipped back to Canada, railed and trucked to the Crowsnest Pass and installed on someone's roof. How is this better for the environment?

There is an economic concept I was reminded of recently called Bootleggers and Baptists. The notion behind it is that rum runners loved the temperance movement because the more the pastors and church ladies succeeded at prohibition, the more money there was to be made in illicit liquor sales.

In this case, the environmental groups are the Baptists, the mercenaries going from fight to fight. But are we getting anywhere with this tit for tat?

As consumers, we are all worse off as a result of the battle. All it is doing is forcing people to invest in uneconomic projects that drive up the cost of energy.

Maybe it's too much to ask, but perhaps all the energy interests need to stop demonizing each other, and focus on finding a way to improve their own environmental footprints. There's room for everyone.