Skip to main content

The Impact of Technology on the US Energy Market

Hoskin would visit nearly a dozen different Canadian homes, moving about Ontario and Quebec before arriving in the "more cultured, more civilised" Vancouver. He became a Canadian citizen and continued to create books, each one more absurd than the last. Rampa allegedly flew as an air ambulance pilot in World War II, evaded capture and torture, and fled a prison camp near Hiroshima on the day the bomb was dropped. In Vancouver, Hoskin stayed in a West End hotel. According to his secretary's self-published memoir, he liked the waterfront vistas but found Vancouver difficult to navigate. He couldn't recreate The Third Eye's success; it had been difficult to find a home that could accommodate his cats, and health difficulties required the use of a wheelchair in an inhospitable metropolis. Hoskin became more reclusive as his writings expanded to include aliens, prophecies about future conflicts, and previously unreported escapades of Christ. Hoskin moved again, this ti...
Post a Comment

How U.S. Companies are Adapting to Changing Consumer Preferences

Setting a price on carbon emissions was previously the cornerstone of the federal government's climate policy. Today, it's anything but.In its most recent budget, for example, the federal government outlines its climate priorities and the means it would employ to achieve them. Surprisingly, pollution pricing is rarely discussed. And when they do, they usually allude to the system that major industrial emitters confront rather than the one that individual Canadians face1.The government appears to be swiftly shifting away from market-based measures to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in favor of more focused initiatives such as hydrogen project subsidies, carbon capture and storage, and sustainable power generation. Budget 2023 may include the equivalent of $70 billion in tax-funded incentives over ten years.It is also enforcing harsher rules on gasoline suppliers and automobile sales. And there's more to come. The administration appears to be about to unveil the most dramatic break from efficient climate policy yet: an emissions cap for the oil and gas sector.This is a really awful concept.First, greenhouse gas emissions have the same impact on our climate independent of sector or place of origin. One tonne is the same as another.Imposing higher burdens on some activities but not others raises the cost of reducing emissions over what is necessary. Why spend $100 to avoid a tonne in one activity when you can avoid a similar tonne for $50 elsewhere? As a result, a cap would require emissions reductions at potentially high costs.

With Canada's productivity growth already behind

meeting our environmental objectives effectively should be a top concern. That means that broad-based and uniform incentives to reduce emissions are generally preferable, simply because the government has no idea what or where low-cost emissions reduction opportunities exist. Creating an incentive that we all confront equally places such decisions in the hands of individuals and organizations, who frequently know what the cheapest options are.Second, a cap risks undermining the government's own argument for placing a price on carbon in the first place. If we can reduce emissions without a tax, some may argue that one is unnecessary. Such arguments are already gaining traction in response to the recent subsidy-heavy US climate bill2.And a cap effectively urges Canadians to assign blame upstream, reinforcing the mistaken belief that some emissions are more harmful than others. That contradicts the basic basis for carbon pricing, which may erode public support.A cap on oil and gas emissions could potentially damage the government's legal case for pricing carbon in provinces that do not want to, according to University of Alberta professor Andrew Leach, who recently testified before a House of Commons Committee. The government's argument focused on the constancy of prices across Canada. A cap on oil and gas emissions detracts significantly from this.

Third, a cap on oil and gas emissions is unnecessary

to meet our carbon reduction targets.According to the latest federal government modeling, Canada is now on track to meet our initial Paris objective of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.
It is true that the administration has just shifted the goalposts and is now aiming for 40-45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, which—putting aside the prudence of shifting our targets before ever reaching one—may necessitate a more restrictive approach.To be honest, particular emissions targets like this may be a misguided goal, and they are extremely difficult for a tiny open economy like Canada to accomplish. GDP growth, population increase, energy costs, and so on all have significant implications for future emissions. The difference between the government's stated low-growth and high-growth forecasts for 2030 is almost 50 million tonnes, which is greater than the present emissions of the entire electricity industry.Aside from that, we may reduce emissions even further and seek to meet these more ambitious objectives by enhancing existing policies rather than implementing new and more expensive ones.

Quebec, for example, is a laggard in terms of certain 

climate legislation. In that province, the most recent results of the carbon permit auction inside their cap-and-trade system yielded prices less than half of the $65 per tonne price that prevails elsewhere. Before inefficiently increasing expenses in specific targeted industries, we may ensure that those who are falling behind are caught up.I know that policymakers are (or should be) concerned with more than just avoiding economic costs. Neither party truly endorses market-based approaches. And Canadians may prefer to keep prices hidden, even if it means paying more overall.Pricing emissions does not always make economic sense. Regulations to reduce methane emissions—which, surprisingly, may be the most significant near-term driver of emissions reductions in the oil and gas sector—are relatively low-cost and sometimes difficult to price.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Role of Big Data in U.S. Business Evolution

Our strategy should be one of balance, supporting strategic independence, competitiveness, and fair world conditions. We should give good relationships and well-informed policy top priority instead of enforcing negative restrictions.  The link between the Single Market and EU enlargement is yet another important issue to solve. The integration process presents major challenges to the integrity of the EU as well as to the aspiring nations. Aiming for balance and thereby guaranteeing that the EU is not solely seen as an economic entity, our policy should efficiently blend political and economic union.  We have to give Economic Security first priority if we are to guarantee the existence of the Single Market; we also need to enhance our trade strategy, control expansion, and manage our contacts with important strategic partners. The geopolitical changes of recent years highlight the need of concentrating the outside component of the Single Market to guarantee its adaptability and...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Future of Business in the U.S. Meet the Contenders

These disparities in annual GDP growth rates may look little, but over time, they add up to significant differences in the economy's overall output. For example, under the high oil price scenario, the difference in real GDP by 2050 is around $200 billion, or roughly 7% of GDP at the time. This is the GDP cost of choosing the production phase-out method over the aggressive decarbonization approach. This GDP drop is similar to double the size of Canada's recession during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, but unlike that recession, which lasted slightly more than a year, the GDP cost in Table 1 is permanent. In comparison, in the low-world-oil-price scenario, the 2050 GDP difference is around $27 billion, or just under 1% of GDP at the time. In this scenario, the phase-out of oil and gas production still has an economic cost, but because that output is less valuable on global markets, the cost of surrendering it is smaller. These findings emphasize three key factors. First, in mos...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Evolution of U.S. Business Operations

The dominant paradigm that has shaped business for the last 50 years is beginning to shift. Over the next ten years, the nature of the firm will be altered by the combined impact of external and internal pressures. However, this adjustment has occurred several times before. In truth, the concept of what a business is has evolved slowly but powerfully throughout a series of what we now consider to be distinct eras, which in the last two centuries have typically lasted 40 to 50 years. They are distinguished by a set of unifying qualities and an iconic corporation that comes to represent the age, such as Standard Oil during the trust era around the turn of the century. Transitions between eras occur over decades. The margins are hazy and often only become obvious in retrospect. Some features of the preceding age persist, while others change into something entirely new. However, understanding the evolution pattern can assist organizations in adapting to win in the approaching period. More:...
Post a Comment
Read more