The uselessness of Canada's climate alarmism

Herman · December 27, 2023, 12:43:15 AM

Herman · January 04, 2024, 09:48:14 PM

Policies like an emissions cap that hurt Canada's oil and gas industry will only help prolong the use of coal as a major global fuel source. Coal was responsible for 76% of all CO2 emissions from the world's power sector in 2022. Replacing it with cleaner LNG from trusted suppliers like Canada could do significantly more to lower emissions on a global scale than any sort of industry-specific emissions cap.
https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022

Lokmar · January 04, 2024, 10:03:30 PM

I think I'm going to start burning all my old tires.

Herman · January 22, 2024, 10:47:24 PM

Pat Gray plays a clip of CBS News' Ben Tracy attempting to answer this question by linking "climate change" and "arctic chill."

"It has been really cold in most of the country for the past week or so, and you've probably heard some people say, 'So much for global warming,'" Tracy said. "Well, when we talk about climate change, we're talking about the planet warming over the course of many decades, not what just happens in one winter or over the course of a couple of weeks."

"Keep that in mind: the same thing does not apply in summertime when it's 106. That is unprecedented; it is unreal; it is unsustainable ... but in the winter, totally explainable," interjects Pat sarcastically.

Brent · February 04, 2024, 06:50:42 PM

Trudeau government doesn't know how much its carbon tax reduces emissions

So how can Canadians possibly know if they're getting good value for the money they're spending on the carbon tax?

QuoteGiven that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's carbon tax is costing the average Canadian household hundreds of dollars annually when factoring in its negative impact on the economy, how much is it lowering Canada's greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer is the Trudeau government doesn't know.

In response to an order paper question by Conservative MP Dan Mazier last week (hat tip to commentator Spencer Fernando for reporting it), Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said:

"The government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing. Retroactively attributing specific GHG reductions to a specific action, such as carbon pricing, a discrete regulation, or a specific incentive, is difficult given the multiple interacting factors that influence emissions, including carbon pricing, tax incentives, funding programs, investor preferences and consumer demand. The National Inventory Report, which reports annually on historical GHG emissions, does not include this information."

Given that, how can Canadians possibly know if they're getting good value for the money they're spending on the carbon tax?

Mazier posted on X that, "Trudeau's radical Environment Minister admits the government DOES NOT measure how many emissions are 'reduced' by their costly carbon tax. Why? Because the carbon tax is not an environmental plan – it's a tax plan."

Parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux reported last year that 60% of Canadian households paying the federal carbon tax (in all provinces except Quebec and B.C., which have federally-approved carbon pricing plans) are paying more in carbon tax than they receive in climate action incentive rebates, when factoring in its negative impact on the Canadian economy.

The PBO says this will increase to 80% in Nova Scotia in 2025, 80% in Ontario in 2026, 80% in Manitoba in 2029 and 80% in Alberta and P.E.I. in 2030.

Here are the PBO's estimated net costs for people living in provinces under the federal carbon tax regime. The first figure is the estimated average household cost this year, with the carbon tax at $65 per tonne of emissions, the second in 2030 when it will be $170 per tonne:

Alberta $710, $2,773; Ontario: $478, $1,820; Saskatchewan $410, $1723; Manitoba $386, $1490; Nova Scotia $431, $1,513; P.E.I $465, $1,521; Newfoundland and Labrador $347, $1,316.

The PBO's calculations did not include New Brunswick because it joined the federal carbon tax system after it did these estimates.

As for the carbon tax's effectiveness as part of what the Trudeau government says is its $200 billion plan to address climate change, Canada's emissions in 2021 increased by 1.8% to 670 million tonnes compared to 2020.

The Trudeau government's goal is to reduce Canada's annual emissions by 40% to 45% compared to 2005 levels in 2030.

In 2021, they were 8.5% lower than 2005 levels.

We won't know Canada's 2022 emissions until April, because the government reports them two years after the fact.

The PBO says Canada's emissions – 1.5% of the global total – are too small to materially impact climate change.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-government-doesnt-know-how-much-its-carbon-tax-reduces-emissions

https://twitter.com/MBDan7/status/1753530481218392171?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1753530481218392171%7Ctwgr%5E76e1ef4ca9448d1caf2c43bb30f2ef79a0a0d38d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftorontosun.com%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2Fgoldstein-trudeau-government-doesnt-know-how-much-its-carbon-tax-reduces-emissions

Thiel · February 04, 2024, 07:54:20 PM

The federal carbon tax has not reduced Canada's emissions. It has reduced living standards though.

Herman · February 18, 2024, 08:24:01 PM

Justine's team knows Canadians are tiring of their climate obsession. Therefore, some softening of the blunt force climate trauma they are hitting Canadians with.

This was written by Lorne Gunter of Sun News.

According to internal polling by Pierre Poilievre's party, the federal environment minister, Steven Guilbeault is an enormous drain on Liberal popularity everywhere, except in Montreal and Toronto.

So, it's not surprising, in a party desperate for broader support, that Guilbeault climbed down (sort of) from his pledge to stop giving federal money to new highway construction and is now also backpedalling on his net-zero power grid rules.

No concessions yet on his EV mandate (that only electric vehicles will be available for sale in Canada by 2035), but I am sure that's coming.

This has been quite a week for the Trudeau Liberals' "green" agenda. It's clear Canadians are beginning to push back against the federal government's constant haranguing and preaching on climate change and its hypocritical application of the carbon tax.

On Monday, Guilbeault told a conference of transit planners from across the country that the Liberals had decided the country's current network of highways is "adequate." Therefore, Ottawa would no longer be handing over cash for new construction.

According to the downtown Montreal MP, Canadians should consider living in more densely packed neighbourhoods and taking transit or walking more (as if those options were a possibility outside of three or four downtown city cores).

Just consider the math behind Guilbeault's claim.

The federal government is letting in a million new Canadians each year (more if you count foreign students). Just as that is creating a housing shortage, it is quite quickly going to create a road shortage, too.

It staggers the imagination that a government that is flooding the country with newcomers could insist the current roadway system would remain adequate for more than a year or two.

Of course, by Wednesday, after Canadians had thoroughly mocked Guilbeault's proposal, the minister insisted he hadn't said what he very clearly had said in front of cameras and witnesses.

The point is, someone at Liberal HQ or the PMO was making the radical eco-minister back down, even if only a bit.

Then on Friday, Guilbeault hinted he might soften his net-zero power grid regulations, too, released just before Christmas. He told premiers and other critics "they have been heard" and he soon expected to outline as many as a dozen "major changes."

The Liberals' polling must be revealing what the Conservatives' is – namely that voters outside the blinkered "progressive" bubbles in Montreal and Toronto have had enough of expensive, inconvenient, "green" pipe dreams.

Indeed, a survey of Canadians' attitudes, conducted by the very pro-Trudeau, very "green" Privy Council Office, found 70% of Canadians "strongly or somewhat agree environmentally friendly options are too expensive."

An EV might sound like a nice idea in theory, but when middle-class Canadians go to pay for one, the 40% higher sticker price dulls their enthusiasm to save the planet.

xpect the vote-hungry Liberals to shortly announce they'll permit us to buy gasoline- and diesel-powered cars a bit longer, so long as we please, please, please agree to vote for them again.

They will have to be smarter backing away from EVs than they were backing away from their carbon tax. That reversal applied mostly to Atlantic Canada, because that reliably Liberal region was abandoning the party. But the move didn't save Liberal fortunes there, while at the same time, the obvious favouritism cost them even more support elsewhere.

However, the carbon tax controversy caused the Liberals to try to prove they weren't being inconsistent. So, they voted down a law eliminating the carbon tax on farm fuels, which will cost Canadian farmers nearly $1 billion this year and further raise the price of groceries.

Good strategy, guys.

The Liberals, led by Trudeau and Guilbeault, are suffocating their electoral chances with their "green" obsessions.

Herman · February 18, 2024, 08:34:24 PM

Here are the PBO's estimated average net costs (after rebates) for households in provinces under the federal carbon tax regime this year, with the carbon tax at $65 per tonne of emissions, followed by the estimated net cost in 2030, when it will be $170 per tonne.

Alberta $710, $2,773; Ontario: $478, $1,820; Saskatchewan $410, $1723; Manitoba $386, $1490; Nova Scotia $431, $1,513; P.E.I $465, $1,521; Newfoundland and Labrador $347, $1,316.

The idea that the increased costs faced by Canadians paying Trudeau's carbon tax up to 2030 — we don't know what happens after that — will result in savings because of less severe weather in Canada by 2030, when our emissions aren't large enough to materially impact climate change, is absurd.

The PBO estimates the GST portion of the carbon tax or "tax on a tax" will raise $486 million for the federal government this year, rising annually to more than $1 billion in 2030.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says the Trudeau government has not returned $2.5 billion in carbon tax revenues collected since 2019 to small businesses in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, despite promises to do so.

In reality, we don't know how effective the carbon tax is because the Trudeau government doesn't keep track of its impact on emissions. It guesstimates it will account for up to one-third of emission reduction in 2030.

According to the latest available federal government data, Canada's emissions in 2021 went up by 1.8% to 670 million tonnes, compared to 2020.

The U.S., without a national carbon tax, has been more successful than Canada at reducing emissions.

DKG · March 22, 2024, 11:51:40 AM

Since the Trudeau government insists 80% of Canadian households paying the federal carbon tax receive more in rebates than they pay in carbon taxes, here's what independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux said when he examined the carbon tax last year.

He concluded 60% of households in provinces paying the federal carbon tax (Quebec and B.C. have their own systems) were already paying more in carbon taxes than they received in rebates, rising to 80% in Nova Scotia in 2025, in Ontario in 2026, in Manitoba in 2029 and in Alberta and P.E.I. in 2030.

Here's the net cost, after rebates, the PBO calculated for average households, from 2024 to 2030, as the carbon tax increases by 23% from $65 per tonne of industrial greenhouse gas emissions to $80 on April 1 and then rises by $15 annually to $170 in 2030.

Alberta: 2024 $911; 2025 $1,137; 2026 $1,445; 2027 $1,783; 2028 $2,136; 2029 $2,453; 2030 $2,773.

Ontario: 2024 $627; 2025 $799; 2026 $987; 2027 $1,184; 2028 $1,396; 2029 $1,605; 2030 $1,820.

Saskatchewan: 2024 $525; 2025 $687; 2026 $871; 2027 $1,079; 2028 $1,345; 2029 $1,545; 2030 $1,723.

Manitoba: 2024 $502; 2025 $633; 2026 $791; 2027 $951; 2028 $1,122; 2029 $1,305; 2030 $1,490.

Nova Scotia: 2024 $537; 2025 $665; 2026 $826; 2027 $987; 2028 $1,162; 2029 $1,351; 2030 $1,513.

Newfoundland and Labrador: 2024 $377; 2025 $488; 2026 $637; 2027 $802; 2028 $974; 2029 $1,141; 2030 $1,316.

Prince Edward Island: 2024 $550; 2025 $671; 2026 $838; 2027 $1,007; 2028 $1,172; 2029 $1,345; 2030 $1,521.

New Brunswick isn't included because it joined the federal system after these calculations were made; the three-year carve-out on paying the carbon tax for households heating their homes with oil will temporarily reduce costs for them. Meanwhile, Saskatchewan is refusing to collect the carbon tax on natural gas.

formosan · March 22, 2024, 12:00:35 PM

Quote from: DKG on March 22, 2024, 11:51:40 AMSince the Trudeau government insists 80% of Canadian households paying the federal carbon tax receive more in rebates than they pay in carbon taxes, here's what independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux said when he examined the carbon tax last year.

He concluded 60% of households in provinces paying the federal carbon tax (Quebec and B.C. have their own systems) were already paying more in carbon taxes than they received in rebates, rising to 80% in Nova Scotia in 2025, in Ontario in 2026, in Manitoba in 2029 and in Alberta and P.E.I. in 2030.

Here's the net cost, after rebates, the PBO calculated for average households, from 2024 to 2030, as the carbon tax increases by 23% from $65 per tonne of industrial greenhouse gas emissions to $80 on April 1 and then rises by $15 annually to $170 in 2030.

Alberta: 2024 $911; 2025 $1,137; 2026 $1,445; 2027 $1,783; 2028 $2,136; 2029 $2,453; 2030 $2,773.

Ontario: 2024 $627; 2025 $799; 2026 $987; 2027 $1,184; 2028 $1,396; 2029 $1,605; 2030 $1,820.

Saskatchewan: 2024 $525; 2025 $687; 2026 $871; 2027 $1,079; 2028 $1,345; 2029 $1,545; 2030 $1,723.

Manitoba: 2024 $502; 2025 $633; 2026 $791; 2027 $951; 2028 $1,122; 2029 $1,305; 2030 $1,490.

Nova Scotia: 2024 $537; 2025 $665; 2026 $826; 2027 $987; 2028 $1,162; 2029 $1,351; 2030 $1,513.

Newfoundland and Labrador: 2024 $377; 2025 $488; 2026 $637; 2027 $802; 2028 $974; 2029 $1,141; 2030 $1,316.

Prince Edward Island: 2024 $550; 2025 $671; 2026 $838; 2027 $1,007; 2028 $1,172; 2029 $1,345; 2030 $1,521.

New Brunswick isn't included because it joined the federal system after these calculations were made; the three-year carve-out on paying the carbon tax for households heating their homes with oil will temporarily reduce costs for them. Meanwhile, Saskatchewan is refusing to collect the carbon tax on natural gas.

It's so hard for young people to get ahead anywhere in Canada now......my children have chosen good careers, but they will struggle more than my husband and I did......unless we change course soon.

DKG · March 31, 2024, 02:17:44 PM

Trudeau has gathered some agreeable economists to try and give credibility to his deeply unpopular carbon tax. But, he is cherry picking. Even they have said that all the other measures he is using to try and hamstring the economy into lowering C02 emissions are ineffective.

Trudeau's climate plan makes no sense – according to Trudeau
The U.S. does not have a national carbon tax and has been more successful at lowering emissions than Canada

If Trudeau believes his carbon tax is the most efficient and least costly way to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, why doesn't his government keep track of how much it is reducing emissions, as opposed to other government measures?

Instead, the Trudeau government guesstimates that the carbon tax (meaning the clean fuel standard and the output-based pricing system for large emitters) will be responsible for no more than one-third of planned emission reductions in 2030.

That means Trudeau is relying on other, presumably less efficient measures according to his own argument, to achieve at least two-thirds of Canada's emission reductions in 2030.

(The Canadian Climate Institute said recently it is actually the output-based pricing system for large emitters that will be responsible for most emission reductions, as opposed to the fuel charge aimed at Canadian consumers.)

But if Trudeau prefers a carbon tax to "the heavy hand of government regulation", why does his plan, in addition to his carbon tax, include "clean fuel" and "clean electricity" regulations, a "Regulatory Framework for an Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap" and "regulated targets for zero-emission vehicles" under "Canada's Electric Vehicle Availability Standard"?

In terms of his claim that his carbon tax was the alternative to "incentives ... subsidies and rewards" to private industry, what does he call the multi-billion-dollar subsidy war his government is in with the U.S. to attract electric vehicle battery plants to Canada, along with other forms of industrial green technology?

The difference from Canada, or course, is that the U.S. does not have a national carbon tax and has been more successful at lowering emissions than Canada.

In the wake of last year's federal budget, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault boasted that the Trudeau government's total investment to address climate change is now "north of $200 billion" on "more than 100 measures to support climate action" in addition to the carbon tax.

Logically, if Trudeau believes his national carbon tax is the most efficient and economical way to reduce emissions, he should increase it far above his current policy of raising it to $80 per tonne of emissions on April 1, increasing to $170 per tonne in 2030, along with hiking carbon tax rebates.

Then he should eliminate most if not all of the regulations and subsidies he says he doesn't support, which are currently the biggest part of his climate change plan.

Of course, that's unlikely to happen given that his government is currently under siege for its 23% hike to the carbon tax effective Monday, to $80 per tonne, up from $65, during an affordability crisis for Canadians.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeaus-climate-plan-makes-no-sense-according-to-trudeau

Brent · March 31, 2024, 04:08:06 PM

Gasoline prices across Canada rise at midnight. The carbon tax goes up by 23 percent.

Thiel · April 03, 2024, 05:16:43 PM

Greece signalled its interest in purchasing Canadian LNG, to supply not only its own needs, but those of the Balkans, eastern Europe and potentially Ukraine, as well. "Canada is a country with which we share so many values" and geopolitical interests, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis told CTV.

"Apparently, however, those interests do not extend to energy security for our allies. Germany and Japan also voiced interest in purchasing Canadian LNG nearly two years ago, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau torpedoed the idea.

"At the time, his government was hard at work drafting its "Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Government of Canada Guidelines," which were unveiled last summer. (Yes, that is the actual title of the policy, perhaps dreamed up by Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault rereading Karl Marx by organic-candle light.)

Herman · April 05, 2024, 06:37:39 PM

Justine's carbon pricing bullshit aint working. I mean it is working at making life less affordable, but it aint reducing C02 emissions.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/other/charlebois-debating-the-path-to-carbon-pricing/ar-BB1l7IXP?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=e40bad003ea444f58194a77da762b999&ei=32
Over 340 economists have penned an open letter in support of Canada's prevailing carbon tax policy.

Despite the misleading information noted in the letter regarding the carbon tax's impact on our climate and its effect on our cost of living – specifically referencing the Bank of Canada's erroneous calculations – the group certainly has the right to express its viewpoint.

However, the letter seemed overtly partisan, which, frankly, is our most significant challenge.

Canada stands at a pivotal crossroads concerning its climate change strategy, especially regarding its essential agri-food sector. The debate over using a carbon tax as the main instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been fervent, with advocates urging for national standards to prevent a competitive 'race to the bottom' among provinces.

This stance, particularly when applied to the agri-food industry, is laden with risks and oversimplifications.

Climate change remains indifferent to geopolitical lines. If the business climate in Canada worsens due to rigid carbon tax policies, it might prompt agri-food enterprises to move to more economically accommodating regions outside Canada.

Such a migration would represent not just an economic setback but also a strategic error in the broader battle against climate change.

There's a growing demand for a definitive, measurable basis that proves the policy's efficiency in curbing emissions without stunting economic growth.

A detailed and transparent discussion on the carbon tax policy is overdue. Since its introduction in 2015, the policy has shown minimal impact on climate change.

Herman · May 03, 2024, 10:37:45 PM

It aint working. It is all pain for no gain. Not that drastically reducing our insignificant emissions should have been a serious priority.

I fot this from pressreader.

Despite assurances from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government that Canada's industrial greenhouse gas emissions would follow a steady downward path in the wake of the 2020 COVID-19 recession, new federal data released May 2 shows the opposite is happening.

This raises serious questions about the credibility of the Liberals' climate change program, to which they have committed more than $200 billion of taxpayers' money earmarked for more than 100 government programs, including the federal carbon tax, currently $80 per tonne of emissions, rising to $170 per tonne in 2030.

Contrary to what the Liberals previously predicted, the latest data shows Canada's emissions rose again in 2022 (federal reporting is always two years after the fact) to 708 million tonnes, up from 698 million tonnes in 2021 which was up from 686 million tonnes in 2020.

This means Canada is moving further away from Trudeau's target of reducing emissions to at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Cutting emissions was the reason Trudeau said he introduced his federal carbon tax in 2019, which increases the cost of almost all goods and services because almost all of them consume fossil fuel energy.

What has happened flies in the face of what then-environment minister Jonathan Wilkinson told the Globe and Mail three years ago, when he said 2019 would be Canada's last year of rising emissions and going forward there would be "year-on-year reductions – absolute reductions – starting in 2020, through to 2030."

It's true emissions dropped in 2020 compared to 2019 because of the pandemic recession, but ever since then they've been increasing.

Keeping track of Trudeau's target of reducing emissions to at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 is difficult, because the feds constantly change emissions from previous years retroactively, saying it's due to improving measuring methods.

Last year, the feds said 2005 emissions were 732 million tonnes. This year they say it was 761 million tonnes.

Using the newest figures, Canada's emissions have only decreased by 7% compared to 2005 levels, compared to Trudeau's target of at least 40% by 2030.

While the Trudeau government was frantically putting a positive spin on the latest numbers Thursday, in reality it's the same old story — the carbon tax keeps going up and so do our emissions.

News:

The best topic

The uselessness of Canada's climate alarmism

Herman

Herman

Lokmar

Herman

Brent

Thiel

Herman

Herman

DKG

formosan

DKG

Brent

Thiel

Herman

Herman