STIRLING: The real reason no pipelines will get built... it's about carbon trading

Last fall at the 29th gathering of the climate Conference of Parties (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan, the rules regarding international carbon trading — Article 6 of the Paris Agreement — were finalized. This is of enormous interest to Canadian energy producers because if the Liberal government chose, Canada could increase its exports of natural gas to countries now using coal, thereby reducing net carbon emissions into the world atmosphere, which the climate change theory says would be a net benefit. They would also receive credit for it and these savings would take us closer to our national goal of net zero emissions.Unfortunately, the Liberal Government of Canada has not been interested, apparently preferring the purist goal of achieving net zero within Canada's own borders..Nevertheless, as this has been in negotiation for nine years, most people in the climate activist community see this as a huge accomplishment. But, while many net-zero bankers see this as a gold mine, energy analyst Anas Alhajji calls carbon accounting the 'Mother of all Enrons.'Back in the late 1990’s, Enron was a major energy company in the USA, and an influential voice in the Kyoto Accord (the forerunner to the Paris Agreement under whose auspices the COP conferences gather.) Thanks to some creative accounting, Enron collapsed in one of the largest bankruptcies in American history in 2001 but before it did so, it established the idea of international carbon markets, which is what the long-negotiated Article 6 addresses. Major ‘green’ philanthropies had embraced the idea — to save the planet, of course..A famous memo from Kyoto — the Palmisano Memo — marked out the Enron wins, as explained by Lawrence Solomon in his 2009 article “Enron’s Other Secret.” Solomon cited “three issues of specific importance to Enron which would become, as those following the climate-change debate in detail now know, the biggest money plays: the rules governing emissions trading, the rules governing transfers of emission reduction rights between countries [aka Article 6 of today], and the rules governing a gargantuan clean energy fund.”By 2007 Enron had been out of play for six years, but ClimateWorks, a collection of huge philanthropies, got together with leading climate activists and a large consulting firm and came up with a program called “Design to Win.” Under this scheme The ClimateWorks Foundation anticipated that the Obama administration would implement a cap-and-trade policy in the US, but this failed to materialize. (Their goal had been to establish two global carbon markets, and the European market took off, despite many bumps along the way, including massive fraud escapades.).Instead, the so-called “Voluntary Carbon Market” sprang up here and there with some success. What’s that all about? Tree planting? As Carbon Credits.com explains: “To put this in perspective, to capture one ton of CO2 emissions you would have to grow approximately 50 trees for one-year ¹.”But ironically the die-hard climate activists began rejecting and resenting this artificial means of trade that does not reduce emissions. Some labelled it greenwashing.Other climate activists however, like The Nature Conservancy, found a gold mine. They began buying tracts of pristine natural land and selling carbon credits against a 100-year moratorium on development in places like their Darkwoods project in British Columbia. In the 2023-24 reporting period, The Nature Conservancy received more than $82 million or 40% of its revenues from Canadian government(s). Another big carbon credit wilderness project is the Great Bear Rainforest, (so named by activist Ian McAllister in 1996 as a marketing ploy.).It seems to be working for them. Matthew Nisbet’s “Strategic Philanthropy in the Post Cap-and-Trade years” outlines the astounding sums of money distributed to environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs,) academics and journalists to agitate for climate/carbon policies to help these philanthropies meet their goal of promoting ‘green’ products (for example, electric vehicles), de-marketing oil, gas and coal, and establishing two international carbon trading markets.Which brings us back to Article 6, the international carbon market rules and methods finalized at COP29, just days after Trump was elected last November.On Trump’s first day in office, he took a wrecking ball to the global climate agenda.The climate activist Liberal government of Canada has been waiting in the wings to use Article 6 through its “Nature-based climate solutions,” that would effectively block off huge tracts of land in Canada from any kind of resource of energy development, for ‘biodiversity’ reasons. Likewise, foreign funders like the Pew Trust, have since the 1990s been pumping millions of dollars into conservation areas in Canada, many of which curiously block potential ports or access to valuable resources.The intent was and is to sell carbon credits and in many cases to have indigenous 'land guardians' see that there is no development. Savvy people like Catherine McKenna have set up consulting firms — hers is called “Climate & Nature Solutions” — to assist corporations in their offsetting needs. Even King Charles is in on it, with his “Terra Carta.”To reach these emissions reductions goals, detailed and accurate mandatory emissions reporting (for those who meet the requirements) is required by corporations. This is a Sisyphean task, with evermore burdensome, meaningless counting of Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions (direct, indirect, and emissions of users of your product.)The US House Judiciary Committee on antitrust violations deems this type of investor climate coercion and meaningless emissions counting as waging a war on the American way of life..So, Article 6 is why a price on carbon (aka carbon tax) will make a big comeback in Canada now that the election is over. Some activists, like Johan Rockstrom, want a floor price of $400/t CO2e. And this — this — is why dreams of big pipeline and infrastructure projects for Canada can’t come true unless proponents are willing to pay for climate extortion and carbon indulgences for ‘the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one,’ as Mark Schapiro described carbon markets in Harpers Magazine of Feb. 2010.“Mother of all Enrons,” said Anas Alhajji. Amen! Thanks for the heads up!

STIRLING: The real reason no pipelines will get built... it's about carbon trading

Related Stories