One of Canada’s most powerful oil lobby groups wants environmental organizations to be bound by a new federal anti-greenwashing competition law.
The proposal, from the Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers (CAPP), is “absolutely ludicrous,” said NDP MP Charlie Angus.
“It never ceases to amaze me just how bold and how cynical CAPP is,” Angus told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview. “This is like a big tobacco executive blows cigarette smoke in your face and says that they demand that doctors have to meet some of the similar standards that big tobacco does for its advertising.”
CAPP has consistently opposed the new changes to Canada’s truth-in-advertising laws that require companies to back-up their environmental claims or face penalties, and is urging the Competition Bureau to hold all non-profit and advocacy groups to the same standards. Alberta Energy and Minerals Minister Brian Jean posted a link and screenshot of a news story about CAPP’s request on Twitter/X, writing, “We need real discussion around climate and environmental policy.”
The changes, brought forth in June, were not well-received by fossil fuel lobby groups. Immediately after the amendments passed in June, CAPP, a handful of individual companies and an oilsands lobby group called the Pathways Alliance wiped information about environmental claims and a proposed carbon capture project off their websites.
Now CAPP says if the oil and gas industry has to play by those newly restrictive rules, their civil society opponents should have to as well. In a Sept. 5 submission to the Competition Bureau, CAPP said the “fundamentally flawed” amendments should be repealed and argued that not-for-profit and advocacy groups should be held to the same evidentiary standards as businesses.
Angus, who championed harsher legislation that would have banned fossil fuel advertising outright, doesn’t really see what the issue is here.
“These greenwashing rules deal with corporate claims because people are making money. That's pretty straightforward. Environmental groups are talking about making sure that we have rules in place to protect the environment,” Angus said. “They're not in the same universe, at all.”
Fossil fuel companies have a long and well-documented history of climate denial and undermining climate action, said Emilia Belliveau, energy transition program manager at Environmental Defence.
“CAPP’s attempt to point the finger at environmental organizations is an old-school distraction tactic,” Belliveau told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview.
For example, under former Alberta premier Jason Kenney the province spent two years and $3.5 million investigating environmental groups for foreign funding. The inquiry, in its final report, did not come up with any “suggestions of wrongdoing on the part of any individual or organization.”
Fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas are the largest contributors to climate change and the science is clear these fuels must be phased out in order to curb the climate crisis.
Oil and gas companies advertise their brands or products as “green,” so they can continue to sell fossil fuels and rake in billions of dollars a year, she said.
“Competition law is designed to protect consumers from businesses and those who are doing deceptive marketing practices for businesses or business activities,” Belliveau said.
“The oil and gas companies, of course, are raking in billions a year selling fossil fuels, and they don't want that to change. Advertising is a key piece of how they are trying to brand themselves as relevant in a public and policy context that is deeply concerned about climate change,” she added.
“Environmental non-profits like Environmental Defence are really about advocating in the public interest, and we make sure that when we're making statements about climate change, we're basing it in fact,” Belliveau said.
“We don't sell anything, so any advertising that we do is … public interest advertising. It's not business marketing.”
CAPP’s submission to the Competition Bureau says the “threat of very significant penalties” will limit the ability of Canadians to participate in meaningful discourse on climate and environmental policy.
“The effect of this legislation is to silence the energy industry, and those that support it, in an effort to clear the field of debate and promote the voices of those most opposed to Canada’s energy industry,” reads the Sept. 5 submission.
Belliveau pointed out that meaningful conversations about these issues must be based in fact and the new Competition Act changes ensure companies do have proof for their claims.
The Competition Bureau is currently investigating the Pathways Alliance for an ad campaign Greenpeace Canada alleged is “false and misleading.” Enbridge and the Canadian Gas Association are also under investigation.
“The reason we have these greenwashing rules in place is because this is an industry that's making billions while making people sick,” Angus said. “They have to tell the truth. That's what this is all about. It's very simple. And if they can't tell the truth about making people sick, then they shouldn't be allowed to advertise.
“My question is, why is CAPP so freaked out about telling the truth about the impacts of its products?” Angus said.
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
Let me be clear.
Cap it CAPP.
(double entendre intended)
"CAPP’s submission to the Competition Bureau says the “threat of very significant penalties” will limit the ability of Canadians to participate in meaningful discourse on climate and environmental policy."
CAPP's statement makes me laugh ... CAPP's only interest is to spread disinformation without being held accountable for a product that is causing major harm to people and the planet.
I do not see an issue with ENGOs being held to the same high standard of evidence for their claims.
A public debate supported by and grounded solely on evidence can only be a good thing. As long as both sides stick to the facts and the best available science, industry, ENGOs, and the public have nothing to fear.
No need for ENGOs to exaggerate or make false claims. Reality speaks for itself.
No comparison between industry and environmental groups. ENGOs are not trashing the planet. ENGOs have not been duping the public for decades.
When environmental groups get it wrong, the result is a cleaner, healthier environment with more abundant wildlife.
When industry gets it wrong, the result is massive pollution, a destabilized climate, species extinction, ecological collapse, and public health disasters. Not to mention massive profits. The environmentalist Davids face industrial Goliaths.
Industry has run an organized PR campaign for decades to confuse the public around climate change and stall action. Now that blatant science denial no longer works, industry now obstructs effective climate policy in favor of false climate solutions like carbon capture that perpetuate fossil fuels.
Aside from Jason Kenney, who will prosecute ENGOs for reducing pollution, slowing climate change, and staving off disaster?
Unfortunately, it is a fact that Canada's big ENGOs and energy thinktanks are sometimes complicit in Big Oil's and Big Auto's deceptions.
Several ENGOs promote false climate solutions and quick fixes like EVs while ignoring public transit — and the public interest. They exclude the costs of cars and car culture from the discussion. Misleading the public, as if all we have to do is switch out the engine, and otherwise it's business as usual, with millions of cars clogging our cities. Not an honest campaign.
If all we do is replace fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy, and still consume the same amount of other resources, and generate the same amount of waste, sustainability remains a distant dream.
In Nov 2015, top environmental brass held hands with Big Oil CEOs on stage with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley. Unconscionably, big ENGOs signed on to Big Oil's plan to fail.
On stage that day, providing political cover for the deception, stood Pembina's Ed Whittingham, Tim Gray of Environmental Defence, and Karen Mahon of Stand.earth. Also one Steven Guilbeault (Équiterre).
The ENGOs applauded Notley's non-climate plan. Greenlighting oilsands expansion enabled by new export pipelines in return for a small carbon tax that would not impair their profits and a fraudulent oilsands cap that would not outlive the Notley govt.
The doctor tells his 250 pound patient he needs to lose 100 pounds pronto. The patient promises to cap his weight gain at 350 pounds. NOT what the doctor ordered.
ENGOs provided political cover to oilsands expansion. A fraudulent cap limiting oilsands emissions at 43% ABOVE current levels. Oilsands emissions would continue to rise, not fall. No attempt to accurately report grossly under-reported emissions. At best, Alberta's emissions in 2030 would remain virtually unchanged from 2015.
Brought to you by your friends at Esso and your favorite ENGO.
The Pembina Institute was one of the key architects of Alberta's plan. Working hand in glove with industry, Pembina blurs the line between advocacy and collusion.
"Meet the green group that the oilpatch can work with"
http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/meet-the-only-gree…
Industry collaborator and former Pembina director Ed Whittingham loudly supported the Trans Mtn expansion project. He even wrote an op-ed boosting the project in the Globe & Mail with talking points lifted straight from CAPP.
Ed Whittingham: Let's make it less lonely in the 'radical middle'
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/environment-oil-industry-alberta…
Tzeporah Berman: "I understand that we produce over two million barrels a day, and that will increase under the new oilsands emissions limit. I am supporting that climate change plan."
Berman: "While the NDP strategy was far from perfect, at least it was moving in the right direction, albeit slowly."
Berman: "Though I have been a vocal critic of 'business as usual' in the oilsands, I recognize that change doesn't happen over night." Change doesn't ever happen if we keep going in the wrong direction on emissions!
Tzeporah Berman now acknowledges that ENGO collusion with the oil industry was a failure, because the industry is still in denial — unwilling to take significant climate action. Of course, anybody paying the slightest attention could have told her so and saved her the trouble.
When big ENGOs and big-name environmentalists sit down with industry, the results range from disappointing to appalling. Some of these suits and ties seem to be professional sell-outs. Share a bottle of wine with politicians and industrialists, and power goes to their heads. Too many compromises.
Why would any self-respecting environmentalist take part in this deception? With friends like these, we don't need enemies.
Controlled opposition ENGOs displace and stifle grassroots protest:
"It's a matter of trying to, what they called have interactions, fruitful interactions and partnerships with environmental organizations, bringing the environmental groups inside of the tent making them feel as if they have power and in the process they become compromised, lower their expectations of demands and become tame. On the other hand, those organizations that can't be brought into the tent and co-opted are subjected to harassment campaigns. So there are public relations companies that specialize in going through the trash cans of environmental groups, engaging in harassing activities of environmental groups."
— Environmental sociologist Bob Brulle at Brown University
"Drilled" podcast 2018: "Aggressive Think Tanks, Shouty Pundits, and a New Religious Argument"
The real mission of corporate, foundation-funded "environmentalists"? Provide political cover for backroom deals, collaborate with industry, give the oilsands and the government of the day a green varnish, and sell out future generations.
Climate journalists should probe the role played by The Pembina Institute in the Pathways Alliance carbon capture fiasco.
Pembina promotes taxpayer-funded carbon capture (CCS). Even though its own reports cast doubt on CCS's efficacy in the oilsands industry.
In the discussions and negotiations between the Pathways Alliance and Ottawa, Pembina has been a key player. Pembina has published numerous op-eds promoting CCS and generous taxpayer funding for the Pathways Alliance's white elephant.
Unlike ENGOs, which universally oppose CCS in the fossil-fuel industry.
"There is staunch opposition from some environmental groups to the idea of Ottawa subsidizing CCUS projects in the oilsands.
"The Pembina Institute has backed the role of carbon capture and storage and the federal tax credit but doesn't support increasing it.
"Varcoe: Canada 'falling behind' in race to attract carbon capture investments" (Calgary Herald, Sep 07, 2022)
Unlike most ENGOs and the 400+ scientists and academics who signed an open letter in January 2022 advising against federal support for carbon capture (CCS) in the O&G sector, the largely corporate-sponsored Pembina Institute has long supported both carbon capture in Canada's O&G sector and massive public subsidies to fund it.
Pembina supports what appears to be a reasonable policy compromise between two polarized positions: Pathways Alliance demands at least two-thirds taxpayer funding while environmental groups want zero. So the 50% tax credit for CCS Pembina promotes becomes the reasonable compromise.
"Environmental think tank the Pembina Institute says capturing and storing CO2 from oilsands facilities, refineries and gas plants could reduce Canada's emissions by 15 Mt by 2030.
"'There is a significant role for carbon capture in decarbonizing the O&G industry,' said Simon Dyer, the Pembina Institute's deputy executive director. 'We don't know any details about the investment tax credit yet. But we don't oppose those sorts of investments to sort of kickstart that industry.'"
"Carbon capture tax credit a divisive topic; opinions split over potential benefits" (CP, March 30, 2022)
"Some environmental groups lambasted the feds for the new measure, but Jan Gorski of the Pembina Institute said the 50% level was appropriate. Combined with other federal policies, such as a national price on carbon and the incoming clean fuel standard, it will provide an incentive for companies to invest."
"Varcoe: Federal incentive for carbon capture puts ball back in Alberta's court" (Apr 08, 2022)
Former Pembina director, self-styled "pragmatic environmentalist", Ed Whittingham is an industry collaborator and climate contrarian -- on the wrong side of many climate issues and bad deals with industry. His advocacy for false climate plans and new oilsands pipelines puts him in opposition to IPCC and IEA reports. Not only does he support carbon capture for O&G, he also supports carbon capture for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
The same Pembina Institute has long promoted oxymoronic "responsible oilsands development". And collaborates with industry on failed climate plans.
"Responsible oilsands development" is brilliant marketing, supreme greenwashing, and utterly meaningless.
Largely funded by corporate Canada, including Big Oil companies and the Big Banks that back them, the Pembina Institute serves industry as a controlled opposition group.
Pembina's participation in industry's deceptions is unfathomable and inexcusable.
Welcome "back", Geoffrey. I've been missing your detailed/thorough assessments of various issues. Even if I don't always agree with everything you present, you vastly broaden the scope of issues related to whatever is being covered. It would be interesting to know how you store/retrieve/collate all the information you provide.
Somebody reads all that?
I write way too many comments in papers, and most of them too long. But I'm working on it.
I agree. Always useful insights from quite a catalog of references.
I thought perhaps that the reason for not seeing his comments for months was because Geoffrey had thought better of renewing his CNO subscription.
When Trudeau fils became PM and Catherine McKenna was appointed to cabinet, I found it interesting to see that former Pembina E-D Marlo Raynolds had been appointed her CoS. When I was at uCalgary, mid-noughts, he made a presentation (as E-D) on the place of the PI in the ecosystem of ENGOs. I'm disappointed, though not surprised, perhaps, to learn that PI supports CCS. The biosphere as we know it will surely die if such "pragmatism" if the best it can muster.
I am reminded of a similar collaboration, in the 90s, between the BC forest industry and activists/ENGOs of the day following the "War in the Woods". Glad-handing, smiles, "a new day", and congratulations all-around.
https://thenarwhal.ca/25-years-after-clayoquot-sound-blockades-the-war-…
https://www.google.com/search?q=british+columbia+forestry+crisis
Sigh.
It is unfortunate how easy it seems to be to stroke some naive egos.
I'm fine with leveling the playing field. So, we include the environmental groups. And, we set the fines for violations of the rules as a percentage of annual profits, that escalates for repeated violations.
What's that you say? Environmental groups don't MAKE profits? Well then I guess their fines will be small.
Yes, O&G make a lot of money pumping out fossil fuels. On the other hand, the larger environmental orgs have professional staff who make money too. Look at Greenpeace, for example. They've lied for decades about the seal hunt. They know they're lying but keep doing it in order to bring in donations that pay their staff. Does anyone seriously think that type of thinking is unique to Greenpeace?
Damn straight the rules should apply to all.
Is it your view that people who work for environmental groups should not be paid?