Emissions cap for petroleum industry unrealistic: CAPP
“We want to ensure that economic policies put forward by government enable emissions reductions and help us fight global climate change,” Jack Middleton, Senior Advisor, Strategic Outreach for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers told the Peace River Regional District board last week. “As it currently stands, the policies don’t do this.”
CAPP is trying to raise awareness about the proposed regulated emissions cap on the petroleum industry in British Columbia, and the consequences to the provincial economy, Middleton said.
In March 2023, the BC government proposed an energy action framework, which the province says will build on actions outlined in CleanBC to drive clean economic growth, and help the province meet its legislated climate targets. By clean growth, the government means electrification.
Premier David Eby said that the government’s “work on the climate crisis and our commitment to the next generation requires everyone, including the oil and gas sector, to do their part of reduce emissions.”
One of the problems with that statement, according to Middleton, is that only the petroleum industry – oil, gas, and LNG – in BC is affected. The proposed framework excludes the emissions produced by forestry and mining. Not only that, but the emissions cap proposed in the framework is 33 to 38 per cent below 2007 levels, by 2030.
“There are very few options for how we can abate those emissions,” Middleton said. “Many organizations have come out and talked about how this will essentially limit production, to meet those levels. “
Limiting production is a significant issue for BC, he continued. “It means a loss of jobs, productivity, royalties to the provincial government – it’s a significant challenge.”
The BC Business Council did a study, said Middleton, using the provincial government’s own modelling of their CleanBC policy, which shows that if BC stays on this policy track, there will be a $28 billion loss of income in the province.
“This is the government’s own modelling for their policy,” he said. “They’ve essentially laid out that this is not economically viable.”
Every sector of the economy, except electricity, is negatively impacted by the policy.
“It’s not a pretty picture.”
The policy that’s been put forward is not realistic, Middleton said. “We want realistic timelines, and we’d like to find ways to electrify and reduce emissions in ways that do not reduce production.”
The geography of BC poses challenges to electrification, and the further north one goes, the more challenging it becomes. “Requiring companies to meet the same compliance pathways as they do in the south is not realistic,” he said.
With most of the the province’s oil, gas and LNG produced in northeastern BC, meeting the requirements of the proposed framework will have serious economic consequences for the region.
“The importance of the industry in BC, as you know, is huge,” Middleton told the PRRD. “That’s something we try to get across when we’re speaking in cities and the south.”
“As you see in your communities every day, businesses and people are working and benefitting from this sector. We all have a role to play in elevating this in people’s minds when they think about the resource sector in BC. It’s not just forestry and mining. It’s also natural gas.”
It’s not just northeastern BC that benefits from the petroleum industry. Other communities throughout the province also benefit, including Vancouver, Surrey, and Nanaimo.
“Having a strong, diverse resource sector across the province is important. We’re passionate about fighting for that."