The uselessness of Canada's climate alarmism

[Herman]

It is your failing government that has given us a lost decade and record high spending and debt that should be voted out next election, not our oil and gas sector.



Canadian minister: Fossil fuels must be phased out 'no later than 2050'

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/interview/canadian-minister-fossil-fuels-must-be-phased-out-no-later-than-2050/



World nations must agree to phase out unabated fossil fuels "no later than 2050" and earlier if possible, says Steven Guilbeault – with any residual oil and gas emissions mitigated thanks to carbon capture and storage technology, he told EURACTIV in an interview.



Steven Guilbeault is Canada's minister of environment and climate change. A founding member of the Quebec environmental group Équiterre, he was director and campaign manager for the Quebec chapter of Greenpeace for ten years.



INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS:



Canada aligns with Europe's objective to accelerate the deployment of renewables, increase energy efficiency and reduce dependency on fossil fuels at the COP28 summit in Dubai.

Ottawa will soon table regulations for a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.

Canada has "a more agnostic view" than the European Commission about which sectors should or shouldn't use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

"2023 is the year" when rich nations will meet their $100 billion commitment to developing nations on climate change.

[Herman]

And if it means unaffordable energy, reduced living standards, blackouts and homelessness so be it. You will be pleased to know it will not affect Justine.



Politicians clueless about implications of 'net zero' crusade

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-politicians-clueless-about-implications-of-net-zero-crusade



"Net zero" is a popular talking point among many politicians and members of the commentariat. It refers to the idea of eliminating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to the production and use of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and thermal coal) by 2050 or sooner. Many believe this is necessary to stem the warming of the Earth's atmosphere that's been occurring since the late 1800s.



In Canada, the Trudeau government has embraced net zero and adopted a host of laws, policies and regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions including to fully "decarbonize" the electricity sector by 2035, only a dozen years from today.



To be sure, moving away from fossil fuels as an electricity source is necessary if policymakers are committed to net zero. However, doing so won't be easy. Few champions of net zero have any idea how much additional electricity — not just capacity, but reliable "watt-hours" — will be needed to meet this goal. Fewer still understand the infrastructure requirements of developing an entire energy system centred around electricity. And almost none have a handle on the gargantuan capital investments needed to finance and engineer a rapid energy transition, or what this means for Canada's existing regulatory processes.



Canada is unusual globally in that our electricity system already is relatively "green," with about four-fifths of electricity generation coming from water, nuclear, wind and other renewables. But there's a qualification: electricity satisfies only a modest slice — roughly one-fifth — of Canada's total primary energy demand. Fossil fuels supply most of the energy used in transportation, heating, agriculture and industrial activity.



Converting aggregate energy consumption to a single common unit — gigawatt hours, which is how we measure useable electricity — policy analyst Denise Mullen has calculated that Canada would need at least 20 new power generation projects, each matching the output of British Columbia's Site C dam, to reach a 100% clean electric system.



Site C is a large and complex project that's been plagued by delays and soaring costs. It's hard to imagine Canada pursuing 20 or more projects of similar size within the next decade. Another option might be to build hordes of smaller generation facilities, possibly with a couple of bigger ones tossed into the mix, to significantly expand the production of clean electricity. The federal government seems to be leaning in this direction, with billions of dollars set aside in Budget 2023 to subsidize the roll-out of new clean electricity generation and transmission infrastructure.



Meanwhile, Canada has acquired a reputation as a difficult place to pursue industrial development, including "linear" infrastructure such as pipelines and power lines. It can easily take more than a decade to get a mid-sized project approved, permitted and constructed, even with strong government support, Due to our environmental review processes, permitting systems, legal obligations to consult with and accommodate Indigenous communities, and frequent public and interest group opposition.



Are policymakers in Ottawa and across the country prepared to overhaul project review and approval processes to realize net zero? Does the public understand the costs and risks involved in massive new investments in power generation and transmission? Such questions tend to be waved away by politicians and pundits captivated by the vision of net zero. But bold vision without a solid grasp of the facts and context and a realistic plan of execution amounts to hallucination. There's plenty of that in Canada today.



Jock Finlayson is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute

[DKG]

And if it means unaffordable energy, reduced living standards, blackouts and homelessness so be it. You will be pleased to know it will not affect Justine.



Politicians clueless about implications of 'net zero' crusade

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-politicians-clueless-about-implications-of-net-zero-crusade



"Net zero" is a popular talking point among many politicians and members of the commentariat. It refers to the idea of eliminating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to the production and use of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and thermal coal) by 2050 or sooner. Many believe this is necessary to stem the warming of the Earth's atmosphere that's been occurring since the late 1800s.



In Canada, the Trudeau government has embraced net zero and adopted a host of laws, policies and regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions including to fully "decarbonize" the electricity sector by 2035, only a dozen years from today.



To be sure, moving away from fossil fuels as an electricity source is necessary if policymakers are committed to net zero. However, doing so won't be easy. Few champions of net zero have any idea how much additional electricity — not just capacity, but reliable "watt-hours" — will be needed to meet this goal. Fewer still understand the infrastructure requirements of developing an entire energy system centred around electricity. And almost none have a handle on the gargantuan capital investments needed to finance and engineer a rapid energy transition, or what this means for Canada's existing regulatory processes.



Canada is unusual globally in that our electricity system already is relatively "green," with about four-fifths of electricity generation coming from water, nuclear, wind and other renewables. But there's a qualification: electricity satisfies only a modest slice — roughly one-fifth — of Canada's total primary energy demand. Fossil fuels supply most of the energy used in transportation, heating, agriculture and industrial activity.



Converting aggregate energy consumption to a single common unit — gigawatt hours, which is how we measure useable electricity — policy analyst Denise Mullen has calculated that Canada would need at least 20 new power generation projects, each matching the output of British Columbia's Site C dam, to reach a 100% clean electric system.



Site C is a large and complex project that's been plagued by delays and soaring costs. It's hard to imagine Canada pursuing 20 or more projects of similar size within the next decade. Another option might be to build hordes of smaller generation facilities, possibly with a couple of bigger ones tossed into the mix, to significantly expand the production of clean electricity. The federal government seems to be leaning in this direction, with billions of dollars set aside in Budget 2023 to subsidize the roll-out of new clean electricity generation and transmission infrastructure.



Meanwhile, Canada has acquired a reputation as a difficult place to pursue industrial development, including "linear" infrastructure such as pipelines and power lines. It can easily take more than a decade to get a mid-sized project approved, permitted and constructed, even with strong government support, Due to our environmental review processes, permitting systems, legal obligations to consult with and accommodate Indigenous communities, and frequent public and interest group opposition.



Are policymakers in Ottawa and across the country prepared to overhaul project review and approval processes to realize net zero? Does the public understand the costs and risks involved in massive new investments in power generation and transmission? Such questions tend to be waved away by politicians and pundits captivated by the vision of net zero. But bold vision without a solid grasp of the facts and context and a realistic plan of execution amounts to hallucination. There's plenty of that in Canada today.



Jock Finlayson is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute

None of Triudeau's dictatorial decrees will impact global emissions nor will affect the climate in Canada. What it will do is cause widespread hardship across Canada. Even the Parliamentary Budget Office acknowledged that.

[Lokmar]

And if it means unaffordable energy, reduced living standards, blackouts and homelessness so be it. You will be pleased to know it will not affect Justine.



Politicians clueless about implications of 'net zero' crusade

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-politicians-clueless-about-implications-of-net-zero-crusade



"Net zero" is a popular talking point among many politicians and members of the commentariat. It refers to the idea of eliminating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to the production and use of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and thermal coal) by 2050 or sooner. Many believe this is necessary to stem the warming of the Earth's atmosphere that's been occurring since the late 1800s.



In Canada, the Trudeau government has embraced net zero and adopted a host of laws, policies and regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions including to fully "decarbonize" the electricity sector by 2035, only a dozen years from today.



To be sure, moving away from fossil fuels as an electricity source is necessary if policymakers are committed to net zero. However, doing so won't be easy. Few champions of net zero have any idea how much additional electricity — not just capacity, but reliable "watt-hours" — will be needed to meet this goal. Fewer still understand the infrastructure requirements of developing an entire energy system centred around electricity. And almost none have a handle on the gargantuan capital investments needed to finance and engineer a rapid energy transition, or what this means for Canada's existing regulatory processes.



Canada is unusual globally in that our electricity system already is relatively "green," with about four-fifths of electricity generation coming from water, nuclear, wind and other renewables. But there's a qualification: electricity satisfies only a modest slice — roughly one-fifth — of Canada's total primary energy demand. Fossil fuels supply most of the energy used in transportation, heating, agriculture and industrial activity.



Converting aggregate energy consumption to a single common unit — gigawatt hours, which is how we measure useable electricity — policy analyst Denise Mullen has calculated that Canada would need at least 20 new power generation projects, each matching the output of British Columbia's Site C dam, to reach a 100% clean electric system.



Site C is a large and complex project that's been plagued by delays and soaring costs. It's hard to imagine Canada pursuing 20 or more projects of similar size within the next decade. Another option might be to build hordes of smaller generation facilities, possibly with a couple of bigger ones tossed into the mix, to significantly expand the production of clean electricity. The federal government seems to be leaning in this direction, with billions of dollars set aside in Budget 2023 to subsidize the roll-out of new clean electricity generation and transmission infrastructure.



Meanwhile, Canada has acquired a reputation as a difficult place to pursue industrial development, including "linear" infrastructure such as pipelines and power lines. It can easily take more than a decade to get a mid-sized project approved, permitted and constructed, even with strong government support, Due to our environmental review processes, permitting systems, legal obligations to consult with and accommodate Indigenous communities, and frequent public and interest group opposition.



Are policymakers in Ottawa and across the country prepared to overhaul project review and approval processes to realize net zero? Does the public understand the costs and risks involved in massive new investments in power generation and transmission? Such questions tend to be waved away by politicians and pundits captivated by the vision of net zero. But bold vision without a solid grasp of the facts and context and a realistic plan of execution amounts to hallucination. There's plenty of that in Canada today.



Jock Finlayson is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute

None of Triudeau's dictatorial decrees will impact global emissions nor will affect the climate in Canada. What it will do is cause widespread hardship across Canada. Even the Parliamentary Budget Office acknowledged that.

Western governments are giving the world, including their own countries, to china.

[Herman]

Imagine this. You're at home on a crisp prairie winter evening. You go to turn up your heat, but then you hesitate. You feel a chill but it isn't from the cold outside. It's from the thought of your power bill that is surging by 200% to 500% or even more.



That's what the future could look like if Justine's plan for a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 moves forward.



According to a new report from the Public Policy Forum, backed up by the Conference Board of Canada, the cost of Justine's latest ideological crusade could soar past a trillion dollars. That's almost as big as the entire Canadian economy.

[JOE]

Regardless of whatever causes Climate change or environmental destruction, the planet has a severe overpopulation problem.



Even conservatives in this forum who often disagree with me, at least agree on this point. So when conservative and liberals actually agree on common facts or principles then the both must be correct.



Nevermind climate change, if we don't get the populatin down, we're in trouble:







We've added more people in less than 50 years, then ever existed on the planet for millions of years. In fact we're even ahead of schedule according to the above graph which I suspect was made prior to 2023.



Yeah, I'm not surprised that things are falling apart. Socially, economically, environmentally, climatically.



It's like filling up a building meant for 50 people with 100.

And of course the building starts to fall apart.



so overpopulation is essentialy the same idea.

[Frood]

Joey, Thiel needs to Calgon your arse like a Klingon bird of prey between the sheets...



Just say yes.

[JOE]

Joey, Thiel needs to Calgon your arse like a Klingon bird of prey between the sheets...



Just say yes.

how much time do you think we have left, Frood?



10 years? 20? 30? 40?I can't see the world lasting as a functional whole beyond 2060.



And that...is optimistic.

[Frood]

Joey, Thiel needs to Calgon your arse like a Klingon bird of prey between the sheets...



Just say yes.

how much time do you think we have left, Frood?



10 years? 20? 30? 40?I can't see the world lasting as a functional whole beyond 2060.



And that...is optimistic.

Minimum of a few months... maximum of 5 years.



So love Thiel back before you die with regrets...

[JOE]

how much time do you think we have left, Frood?



10 years? 20? 30? 40?I can't see the world lasting as a functional whole beyond 2060.



And that...is optimistic.

Minimum of a few months... maximum of 5 years.



So love Thiel back before you die with regrets...

Why don't you, Frood?



Heck you once claimed in this forum that you were a woman who had a fully formed adult vagina. Lol! Isn't that what seamajor razzes you about all the time?



so ya'd be far better suited for that purpose than I

[Frood]

Minimum of a few months... maximum of 5 years.



So love Thiel back before you die with regrets...

Why don't you, Frood?



Heck you once claimed in this forum that you were a woman who had a fully formed adult vagina. Lol! Isn't that what seamajor razzes you about all the time?



so ya'd be far better suited for that purpose than I

Seaboobs razzes me about as much as bluegill or sunny razzes a baited hook.



I've seen the way you and Thiel look at each other's "posts"... there's sumfink sumfink there, mate....

[DKG]

An excellent editorial in Sun Media about Trudeau's impossible net zero power transmission goals that will bankrupt Canada and have Canadians having freezing in the dark.



Federal Libs' net-zero ambitions a pipe dream

The Conference Board of Canada and the Public Policy Forum think-tank estimate the cost of converting Canada's power grid to net-zero emissions will be $1.7 trillion over the next 25 years if we are to meet Ottawa's enviro targets.



Converting to net-zero power generation is easy for some provinces. They have plenty of hydroelectricity and nuclear generation.



Already about 80 per cent of Canada's power comes from near-zero sources.



Can you guess which provinces will have the easiest time meeting Ottawa's goal? Which provinces will have to spend the least money and go through the least-painful transitions?



Why, yes, you guessed it — Liberal-loving Ontario and Quebec. Ontario has lots of nuclear power. And both provinces built giant hydroelectric projects back in the days when Liberals didn't object to landscape-altering dams and river-changing spillways.



Quebec's James Bay project generates the same amount of electricity as 15 average-sized nuclear power plants, so who cares whether it displaced thousands of First People, killed off tens of thousands of caribou and mercury-contaminated major watersheds?



Quebec gets an environmental pass from Ottawa.



Alberta spent billions in the past decade converting its generating plants from coal to clean natural gas. But nat-gas isn't clean enough for the eco-zealots who run the Liberal government. So now Alberta must spend tens of billions (or hundreds of billions) closeting its natural gas plants in favour of ... well, presumably in favour of wind and solar plants, because even if we had the necessary rivers to dam up, it is unlikely we could get federal regulatory approval to do the kind of eco-damage Quebec got away with in the 1970s and '80s.



Now for the true kicker: The Conference Board of Canada and the Public Policy Forum think-tank estimate the cost of converting Canada's power grid to net-zero emissions will be $1.7 trillion over the next 25 years if we are to meet Ottawa's enviro targets.



That's roughly the same as one year of Canada's annual GDP. It's a preposterous sum.



As the Public Policy Forum put it, "Canada's national landscape is currently dotted by more than 100 power plants of at least 250 MW." To meet the expected growth in demand for electricity (think electric vehicles) and to meet the Liberals' net-zero target, "soon we will need 220 to 340 of them."



Canada will need at least double the number of power plants (or the equivalent in solar and wind farms) in just over a decade and triple the number by 2050. All at a cost of one year's total GDP.



That would require an effort equivalent to refighting the Second World War — twice — in terms of money, construction and manpower. And Ottawa hasn't even begun to mobilize that kind of national effort.



So when the Alberta government says the feds are living in an eco Lalaland that will lead to a quintupling of home heating and power bills, understand they are not being eco dinosaurs or outdated sticks-in-the-mud. They're just being pragmatists.

[Oerdin]

I put this in the big politics thread but as it concerns Canada and retarded policies due to climate alarmism it probably fits here better.



https://www.rebelnews.com/federal_emission_targets_require_drastic_cuts_to_fertilizer_use_and_would_jeopardize_economic_viability_of_farming_report#google_vignette

[Oerdin]

Regardless of whatever causes Climate change or environmental destruction, the planet has a severe overpopulation problem.



Even conservatives in this forum who often disagree with me, at least agree on this point. So when conservative and liberals actually agree on common facts or principles then the both must be correct.



Nevermind climate change, if we don't get the populatin down, we're in trouble:







We've added more people in less than 50 years, then ever existed on the planet for millions of years. In fact we're even ahead of schedule according to the above graph which I suspect was made prior to 2023.



Yeah, I'm not surprised that things are falling apart. Socially, economically, environmentally, climatically.



It's like filling up a building meant for 50 people with 100.

And of course the building starts to fall apart.



so overpopulation is essentialy the same idea.

Dumb.  Most of the 1st and old 2nd world have collapsing populations and only 3rd world crapholes have quickly growing populations.

[Herman]

I put this in the big politics thread but as it concerns Canada and retarded policies due to climate alarmism it probably fits here better.



https://www.rebelnews.com/federal_emission_targets_require_drastic_cuts_to_fertilizer_use_and_would_jeopardize_economic_viability_of_farming_report#google_vignette

Justine can stick it up his ass. I am not complying.