This. Is. Different.
Note: Starting next year, this Substack will be renamed to either The Demolition Dame or Bulldozerina, depending on my mood on December 31. Its current name was a placeholder anyway and also it sounds a lot more pompous than I usually feel.
“The EU’s Ombudswoman accused the European Commission on Thursday of rushing to propose measures on sustainability reporting, agriculture and migrant smuggling without following its own rules on transparent and evidence-based lawmaking.”
The quote is from a Reuters report from Thursday and if one reads it with optimism in one’s heart, one would be justified in experiencing some hope that the Commission may yet come to its senses and drop the “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude. Alas, the hope would be misplaced.
The ombudswoman’s accusation concerns tweaks in sustainability reporting requirements that would make these requirements laxer, not stricter. Obviously, we can’t have that, so a bunch of climate activists promptly complained, triggering the ombudswoman’s righteous action, in the form of an inquiry, launched earlier this year and concluded recently. The findings of the inquiry are unsurprising, to put it mildly.
But what if it was the other way round? What if a bunch of industry associations dared complain about the stringency of the EC’s sustainability reporting requirements and allege these were being drafted with no regard for the well-being of European industry? Well, they’d be crucified, of course. And they were, repeatedly, by media and activists, which is often the same thing these days. Not that this has stopped businesses from complaining but they haven’t exactly achieved much.
Earlier this week, Stellantis’ CEO spelled it out, saying that current emission legislation would plunge carmakers into “an irreversible decline”. Now, Germany’s chancellor is asking Brussels to reconsider the ICE car ban. Net zero’s not so fun anymore when VW’s crashing, eh? The EU’s response will be made public next month, thank you.
If there is one thing the European Commission - and the EU as a whole — excels at, in addition to being obtuse, is double standards. I admit I have a thing for double standards, right up there with the thing I have for offal and animal abuse. And the EU never fails to deliver on my expectations. In the case of its emission regulation requirements, the Commission clearly got a reality check and tried to reflect this in its documentation in what one could describe as a rare moment of lucidity.
Yet activists never sleep and they were quick to prevent any amount of reality from sneaking into their carefully crafted world of emissions reductions, population replacement, and livestock decimation. Of course, the European Ombudswoman, which sounds like a lame romantasy character name, was more than happy to side with them because, of course, it’s one thing when businesses complain — their complaints don’t count as legitimate — and quite another when activists complain. Activists’ complaints matter.
In the spirit of empathy, it needs noting that it must be very sad to have nothing else to live for but a narrative — a narrative that has spawned whole industries that probably pay well but that’s beside the point. It’s sad. Even sadder is what will happen to the European car industry as it tries to pander to activists but they should’ve known better than to pander to activists.
Speaking of double standards, however, we need to mention a figure that would fit right in with the Brussels crowd and, indeed, has been working very hard to do just that. I am, of course, talking about former central banker to not one but two countries and current Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney.
I think I first became fascinated with Carney when I learned about his career at the helm of both the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada. Well, I thought, he must be a truly brilliant financier if he’s led two central banks. We all make mistakes, what can I say.
Mark Carney has been among the most relentless pushers of the net-zero story, inexhaustible founder of net-zero banking alliances and inquisitor of industries with emission reduction commitment campaigns. What he isn’t, it seems, is stupid. The net-zero banking alliances have been falling like dominoes, everyone is walking back emission commitments and Carney is suddenly building oil and gas pipelines. Or at least promising to build some.
This week, PM Carney sealed a deal with Alberta’s Premier Danielle Smith, which will see the federal government drop its insistence on an emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, and even consider building a new oil pipeline to Canada’s West Coast, to capture more of the Asian market. Now, first of all, the deal is preliminary. Second of all, in exchange for the removal of the emissions cap on oil and gas producers, Carney asked for and got a promise for higher carbon prices in Alberta as well as a commitment for a large carbon capture project because these emissions must go down — even as he pledged support to higher production from Canada’s oil heartland.
Now, on the one hand, Carney’s flip-floppery is entertaining and also productive, because the Alberta deal prompted one of my all-time favourites, Steven Guilbeault, to resign as minister. If Steven Guilbeault is unhappy, then whoever made him unhappy did something right.
On the other hand, however, higher carbon prices may well have the same effect on the oil industry as an emissions cap, even though I understand the industry is quite happy with the deal, possibly because Canadian oil producers have been forced to do wonders with emission reduction for years, so they’re kind of used to it. The pain, that is.
Mark Carney is certainly working hard to achieve the level of double-standardness that the EU operates at but he still has a lot of catching up to do. The EU just managed to simultaneously squeeze individual privacy with a vote on chat scanning, including on encrypted messaging platforms, and drop attempts to squeeze Big Tech on child pornography control online. The motive for the chat control thing? Protecting children online. Beat that, Carney.


I would pass on both names. You'll be pissing on much of credibility you built as an energy writer and "expert." If you want to continue to build your blog, whatever your own motivations, you don't want potential new readers to think of you as non-serious or frivolous, however good and biting your writing is. Or start a separate blog. If an employee analyst asks me to pay for a blog service called " Demolition Dame" do you think I'm going to cover that? But "On Energy" no one would question. If you're trying to make a living you need to think of the marketing. whether you like it or not.
While Demolition Dame is nice, I think that Bulldozerina has a more feminine quality