Latest news with #climatepolicy
Fox News
2 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
STEVE HILTON: Gavin Newsom's $9 gas nightmare looms over the Golden State
California drivers are about to get hit – again – at the pump. On July 1, gas prices are set to rise thanks to Gov. Gavin Newsom's relentless climate crusade when higher gas tax and stricter fuel regulations take effect, punishing working families under the guise of environmental virtue. Despite our state's plentiful oil reserves, Californians are forced by Democrat 'climate' policies to pay the nation's highest gas prices (now around $5.00 per gallon), surpassing even Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Extortionate gas prices are not just an inconvenience; they are a crushing burden for working families, who typically face far longer commutes than the leftist work-from home elites who impose these policies. And they're a disaster for small businesses operating on tight margins and are already struggling under the weight of the nation's highest taxes and most burdensome regulations. For those who may think it can't get any worse, pay attention. A recent University of Southern California study predicts that gas prices in California could reach $6 by the end of this year and $8.40 next year, purely through a reduction in California's refining capacity thanks to the onslaught of 'climate' regulation. Add to that a planned 65-cent increase imposed by CARB (the out-of-control California Air Resources Board), and it's not fanciful to imagine the Democrats' extremist 'climate agenda' driving California toward an unthinkable $9 per gallon by 2026. This is ideological zealotry as economic sabotage. California's sky-high gas prices are the direct result of 15 years of one-party Democratic rule. Gavin Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris and every other leading Democrat in the state have been cheerleaders for this "war on fossil fuels," endlessly bragging about "leading the world" on climate change. But their sanctimonious and narcissistic virtue-signaling comes at the price of real pain for the very people Democrats once claimed to represent: the working class. No wonder working class voters, in particular Latinos, are deserting the party in droves. The more you look at the crisis of affordability in California -- the highest costs in America not just for gas but for housing, electricity and every other necessity - the more you realize that the entire regulatory edifice of the Democrat 'climate agenda' is to blame. It is a bureaucratic monstrosity of tax and red tape, built up over the past 20 years since the passage of the 'Global Warming Solutions Act' in 2006, in the name of driving towards an absurd, fantastical target of "net zero" carbon emissions by 2045. It is an incoherent and unachievable pipe dream, the pursuit of which hurts the poorest and most vulnerable, bankrupting our state and driving jobs away faster than you can say "Democrat luxury beliefs." The immediate gas price shock has been prompted by a Democrat-created refinery crisis. California has no oil pipeline connection to the rest of the country, and on top of that it requires a special 'blend' of fuel. This and other regulations are prompting refiners to leave the state, starting with Phillips 66 in L.A. and followed in swift succession by Valero's Benicia plant (recently crippled by fire), and the threatened closure of PBF's Torrance facility. Over 25% of our refining capacity could vanish in a year, leaving us at the mercy of foreign oil and skyrocketing prices. Add to that the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) insane rules, which could slap an extra 65 cents per gallon on fuel costs, and you've got a recipe for $9 gas. On top of this, complex micro-managing regulations—like the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and cap-and-trade fees—pile on costs that hit you at the pump. None of it is justified, even on environmental grounds. Refinery regulations and special fuel blends which may have once made sense in the era of smog and gas-guzzlers are utterly pointless in a world of increasingly fuel-efficient, modern cars. It doesn't have to be like this. We can protect our environment without crushing working families and small businesses. As governor, I would take immediate action to lower gas prices, with a simple, achievable target of $3 gas -- in line with what we see in the rest of the country. Here's how we do it: First, we eliminate the ridiculous "environmental program" costs that add about 54 cents per gallon. These cap-and-trade fees are nothing but a tax on working people to fund Democrats' 'climate' schemes that have not even succeeded in reducing California's overall dependence on fossil fuels. Second, we suspend the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, reformulation requirements, and other burdensome refinery regulations. These add roughly 40 cents per gallon in compliance costs, forcing refineries to jack up prices or shut down entirely. Third, we reduce the state's obscene 60-cents-per-gallon excise tax. Why are Californians paying more to drive than anyone else in the country? Because Democrats are addicted to raising taxes. The trouble is, we get the nation's worst outcomes in return. Finally, we should take immediate steps to boost California's oil production and suspend enforcement of Newsom's pet legislative projects, SBX1-2 and ABX2-1, which choke our energy industry by slapping penalties on refineries for making "too much" profit and making rules like requiring extra fuel stockpiles to guard against the negative effect of the Democrats' own policies. These reforms could shave off another 25 cents per gallon. Three-dollar gas is within reach. That would make a huge difference to so many working-class Californians and small businesses. It's not complicated. It's just positive, pragmatic policymaking. It's what happens when you stop letting ideologues and 'climate' zealots run the show. Newsom, Harris and the rest of the California Democrats want you to believe their green crusade is noble, but it's a cruel hoax. They're chasing refineries out of California, shutting down our cleaner in-state oil production, and piling on regulations that make life unaffordable. Meanwhile, they jet around in private planes and travel in motorcades—hypocrisy at its finest. Their policies don't just hurt your wallet; they're killing jobs, strangling small businesses, and making it impossible for families to make ends meet. And for what? So they can pat themselves on the back at climate conferences while you're choosing between gas and groceries. I'm running for governor to end this madness. California has plentiful oil reserves—more than enough to keep prices low and our economy humming. But Newsom and Harris would rather bow to their woke base than admit fossil fuels are still essential. Their vision for California is one where only the elite can afford to live, while the rest of us are stuck paying $9 a gallon to get to work. It's pathetic, it's unfair, and it's got to stop. With my plan, we'll restore common sense, bring back affordability, and put Californians back in the driver's seat—literally and figuratively. Three-dollar gas is possible, but only if we kick out the career politicians who've been fleecing us for years. Republican Steve Hilton is a candidate for governor of California. He previously served as senior policy and strategy advisor to former U.K. prime minister David Cameron. He is a former host of "The Next Revolution" on Fox News.
National Post
2 days ago
- Automotive
- National Post
Pressure building on Liberals to rethink electric vehicle mandate
OTTAWA — As Canada approaches a critical starting point for its electric vehicle goals, pressure is building on Prime Minister Mark Carney's government to rethink its plan. Article content Starting next year, the Liberal plan to get more electric vehicles on the road will enter its first phase: mandating sales targets for car companies, which could purchase credits, including by spending on charging infrastructure, or face penalties for not complying. Article content Article content Article content The government has set a target of 20 per cent of new passenger vehicles sold in 2026 must be either battery-powered or hybrid, which increases to 60 per cent by 2030 and reaches 100 per cent by 2035. Article content Article content The goal is to reduce the country's emissions, taking direct aim at the transportation sector, which is among the top emitters. Article content But with plummeting electric car sales and Canada's auto sector under duress from a trade war with the U.S, which has abandoned its electrification goals under President Donald Trump, Carney's government must now decide whether to forge ahead or reconsider a core climate policy. 'They're going to have to make adjustments,' said Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association. 'I think they know that, the industry knows that. It's really a negotiation on where those adjustments land. Is this a time for stretch goals or is this a time for reality. What's the mix?' Article content He added that he had spoken to 'several ministers' this week. Article content Article content Brian Kingston, the president and CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, which represents Ford, General Motors and Stellantis and has long opposed the sales mandate, says the policy heaps on added costs at a time when keeping production in Canada has been made more difficult by U.S. tariffs Article content Article content 'At a time where companies are already facing tariff pressure, they are now going to face challenges selling vehicles in the Canadian market. Very difficult to make the case for Canada with this policy in place.' Article content Ford Canada CEO Bev Goodman was among the latest to call for the mandate to be scrapped, pointing to falling customer interest. Article content Statistics Canada bears that out, with the agency reporting a 45-per-cent drop in new zero-emission vehicles sold in March from the same month the year before. It said these new vehicles accounted for around seven per cent of vehicles sold in March 2025 — a figure critics point to as fuel to argue a 20 per cent sales target is unrealistic.
CBC
3 days ago
- Business
- CBC
Edmonton climate policies drive up city building costs, report shows
The City of Edmonton is amending a key climate policy after a report showed building facilities like fire halls and recreation centres in Edmonton is higher due to its current standards than it would be if the city followed a basic design. Last November, city councillors asked administration for a cost-benefit analysis to see how much city policies were adding to the price of building capital projects, concerned that it generally costs less to build in neighbouring jurisdictions like Leduc. The city commissioned a third party, S2 Architecture, to compare two theoretical fire station models: one designed with the City of Edmonton's bylaws and policies and one designed to meet only the minimum code requirements. The findings show that building a fire hall under the city's current standards would cost just over $21 million, 58 per cent more than the $13 million estimated to build a station with a basic design. The case study factored in four city policies when building: the climate resilience policy, the fire rescue service delivery policy, City of Edmonton facility construction standard and the Edmonton Design Committee process. Council's new infrastructure committee discussed the report's findings at a meeting Wednesday. "Direct construction costs are increased by the application of city requirements," Pascale Ladouceur, the city's branch manager of infrastructure planning and design, told councillors. "The biggest cost driver is the climate resilience policy." The committee heard from several speakers, including Lindsay Butterfield with BILD Edmonton Metro, a real estate industry association, who asked councillors to review the policies. "Look at all the options and make trade-offs where they're necessary because we should be looking to minimize costs as well for the entire city's benefit," Butterfield said. But climate advocates, including Jim Sandercock with the Alberta Ecotrust Foundation, urged councillors to follow the current climate policy. "It's going to be really expensive in the future to retrofit buildings that were built to minimum code." Mayor Amarjeet Sohi introduced a motion directing administration to amend the climate policy and explore options for reducing costs while still meeting the goal of creating zero emissions. Committee agreed to the motion and administration is scheduled to present the proposed amendments next spring. "Absolutely, we cannot lose the intent of these policies," Sohi said. "They are there for a good reason, whether they're there for climate resiliency, whether they're there for the safety and protection and creating the right conditions for our front-line folks." 'Valid question' Ladouceur said the findings in the report are a springboard to reviewing the current rules. "I think it's a valid question for councillors to understand: Have we made decisions in the past, administration and council together, that impacts the cost of our infrastructure?" Ladouceur said in an interview Tuesday. The climate resilience policy requires the design to be emissions-neutral. The co-chair of the city's energy transition and climate resilience committee, Jacob Komar, argues that the report findings are inflated because the consultants used higher standards in the case study examples than what's actually needed to create an energy-efficient building. "The walls are probably to an insulation level that is double what is needed for a net-zero building," Komar said in an interview with CBC News Tuesday. Also an engineer who works on net-zero emissions projects, Komar said there's a diminishing return on insulation — the more you add, the less you get for it. "So the walls, the roof, the windows, the doors — there's over $2 million of extra cost that they've added." Ward sipiwiyiniwak Coun. Sarah Hamilton said the case study is an opportunity for reviewing and possibly revising policies, not setting a firm path for council to take. "The government has a role in terms of furthering climate resilience. We have a role in furthering design excellence. We have a role in furthering, I think even our own construction standards," Hamilton said. "We've heard over the decades that Edmontonians don't want something disposable. They want to be proud of the buildings that we're building with their money."
New York Times
3 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Inside a Last-Ditch Battle to Save (or Kill) Clean-Energy Tax Credits
As Senate Republicans scramble to pass President Trump's far-reaching domestic policy bill, climate activists and energy companies are lobbying to salvage tax credits for wind, solar and other climate-friendly technologies. But they are running into formidable obstacles. Conservative activists, fossil-fuel lobbyists and Mr. Trump are demanding that lawmakers enact even deeper cuts to clean-energy subsidies, or even scrap them entirely. At stake are hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of tax incentives put in place by the Biden administration, the vast majority of which are flowing to Republican congressional districts. Some are aimed at encouraging Americans to buy electric vehicles or put solar panels on their roofs. Others are intended to spur manufacturing of wind turbines, solar-panel components and other technologies that would help reduce planet-warming greenhouse gases. All the tax credits were greatly expanded as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the Biden administration's signature climate law. 'What is being proposed now will hurt businesses, and it will risk significant job loss,' said Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, a trade group. Her organization was one of several on Capitol Hill this week mounting a last-ditch effort to remind lawmakers of the jobs the law had created and what states stood to lose. An initial draft of the Senate bill would phase out the tax credits for wind and solar power and electric vehicles starting next year, while incentives for nuclear and geothermal power would stay in place for another decade. The draft would also impose new restrictions on domestic manufacturers that rely on components from China. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Is selling off Santos to a foreign buyer in Australia's national interest? First, define national interest
Amid the multifarious chaos of the past week, many of us might have missed the controversy over the proposed purchase of the energy business Santos by an overseas consortium. But the proposal is likely to create big problems for Australian governments and its resolution will reveal a lot about how Australian policymakers view energy and climate policy. Santos is one of the largest and oldest Australian producers of oil and gas, second only to Woodside Energy (its name is an acronym of South Australia and Northern Territory Oil Search). The core of its operation is the Moomba gas field in the Cooper Basin, in the north-east corner of South Australia. The company now supplies gas to the entire eastern seaboard and has assets in the Timor Sea and Papua New Guinea. The consortium proposing to buy Santos, called XRG, is owned by the Carlyle Group and the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). Carlyle, named for the New York hotel where its founders met to set up the business, is one of the world's largest private equity companies, with close ties to what US President Eisenhower described as the 'military-industrial complex'. Its early years are described in Dan Briody's book The Iron Triangle. Abu Dhabi is the wealthiest and most important of the United Arab Emirates. The value of its state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds total over a trillion dollars. Abu Dhabi's wealth is derived almost entirely from oil and gas, so it is unsurprising to see its national oil company pursuing expansion through acquisitions like the proposed buyout of Santos. Unsurprisingly the prospect of handing ownership of a large share of Australia's energy resources to buyers like these has raised concerns. Most commonly, these are expressed in terms of energy security or, more nebulously, national interest. The issue of energy security can be dismissed pretty rapidly. Unlike the oil we import, the gas is physically located here. If we need it, we can keep it, regardless of the legalities of ownership, contracts and so on. At one time, perhaps, such an attitude might have raised concerns about sovereign risk, threats to future investment and so on. Foreign owners might have threatened us with action under Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) agreements. But the 'rules-based order' in which such concerns made sense, is largely a thing of the past, for good or ill. ISDS, in particular, is more or less dead. Even so, the government has shied away from fixing the absurdly unfavourable gas export contracts signed by Santos and others a decade ago. Concerns about how the deal might affect our national interest are harder to address, mainly because Australian governments have no clear idea of what our national interest might be. It might be argued that we ought to be maximising the returns from our natural resources, while winding down fossil fuels, in line with the goal of achieving 'net zero' emissions globally by 2050. But there is no sign that Australian energy policy is motivated by such goals. In fact, Santos has been a major player in the expansion of gas exports, notably of LNG from Queensland, and is pushing for even higher exports. The company has just received regulatory approval for the $5.8bn Barossa offshore gas project off the Northern Territory coast, described by critics as a 'carbon bomb'. The extra financial resources available to XRG might accelerate this. What is in our 'national interest' is similarly incoherent in regards to tax revenue. Australia taxes its massive gas exports weakly, and it's hard to see how we would get a worse deal from a foreign owned company compared to an Australian one. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Finally, neither Carlyle nor Adnoc can be expected to have any concern with the wellbeing of Australians. Carlyle, as a private company, is concerned with maximising its profits. Adnoc wants profits but also more influence over global markets. But it is a mistake to think that Santos cares any more, except about those Australians who happen to be shareholders, and who can expect a big payout if the takeover goes ahead. John Quiggin is a professor at the University of Queensland's school of economics
