The uselessness of Canada's climate alarmism

[Anonymous]

Will the IPCC reference this study? Not on your life.



World's oceans soak up 900 million tonnes of CO2 a year MORE than previously thought — the amount emitted by 2.2 billion petrol cars

Previous models did not account for temperature differences at different depths

This alters how much carbon is soaked up by the water in total 

Researchers believe the world's oceans actually soak up far more carbon, equivalent to ten per cent of global fossil fuel emissions



The world's oceans are better at soaking up carbon dioxide than most scientific models have previously found, according to a new study.



Although emissions of carbon dioxide are easily quantifiable, how much goes into the atmosphere and how much is absorbed by bodies of water is hard to calculate.



Due to a previous oversight, the oceans may actually soak up an extra 0.9 petagrams of CO2, the same as 900 million metric tonnes.



One petrol car averaging 9,000 miles a year, 40 miles to the gallon and 0.4kg of CO2 a mile will produce 408 kg of CO2 a year.



Therefore, 900 million metric tonnes of CO2 equates to the same amount of CO2 emissions as approximately 2.2 billion cars. 



The researchers say this is equivalent to ten per cent of global fossil fuel emissions.

This additional figure is on top of the already known carbon absorption of the world's oceans which is around two petagrams, the same as around 25 per cent of all CO2 emissions from humans.



Carbon flux is a term used to describe the movement of the greenhouse gas.



Previous estimates of flux have neglected to take into account temperature differences at the water's surface compared to a few metres below.



Researchers from the University of Exeter factored this into their calculations and found it made a significant impact on how much carbon is trapped in oceans.



They worked out total CO2 flux from 1992 to 2018 and found that by accounting for the subsurface water, total carbon movement doubled in some places.   



'Half of the carbon dioxide we emit doesn't stay in the atmosphere but is taken up by the oceans and land vegetation 'sinks',' said Professor Andrew Watson, of Exeter's Global Systems Institute.

'Previous studies that have done this have, however, ignored small temperature differences between the surface of the ocean and the depth of a few metres where the measurements are made.



'Those differences are important because carbon dioxide solubility depends very strongly on temperature.



'We used satellite data to correct for these temperature differences, and when we do that it makes a big difference - we get a substantially larger flux going into the ocean.



'The difference in ocean uptake we calculate amounts to about 10 per cent of global fossil fuel emissions.'



Less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and more in the oceans is a double-edged sword for experts.



Carbon dioxide in the marine environment literally turns the water more acidic, causing coral bleaching and forcing many animals to flee to more hospitable regions.



However, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a major driver of global warming 



The findings are published in the journal Nature Communications.   

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8698067/Worlds-oceans-soak-carbon-previously-thought.html

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Expect the throne speech to be an all out assault on Canadian jobs and disposable income. The CFS will be so damaging, it will make the carbon tax look benign by comparison.



By  Miguel Ouellette, an economist at the Montreal Economic Institute.



Feds new fuel standard will jeopardize jobs

The federal government should encourage economic recovery by being more flexible, not by making the current regulatory framework more restrictive



Since the start of the pandemic, the federal government has been looking for ways to promote economic recovery all while minimizing the impact on employment. Wage subsidies to the left, financial aid to businesses to the right, assistance for seniors here, help for students there — it's a veritable buffet of measures.



To this must be added the golden rule for public policy: First, do no harm. Yet the existing regulatory framework, and rules likely to be added to it, are in fact harmful, and should be reassessed. This is the case, for instance, of the Clean Fuel Standard (CFS), which will be made public this fall.



The visible objective of the CFS is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions all while favouring the use of low-carbon fuels, energy sources, and technologies. Companies will have to respect the Standard either through their own efforts or through the purchase of credits from other companies that emit less carbon.



Although the intention behind this energy policy may be laudable, its format will be detrimental to the Canadian economy, while its effect on the environment is far from certain. The Standard is meant to contribute to Canada reducing its GHG emissions to 30% below their 2005 level by 2030. Canada would become the only country in the world to include natural gas and propane in such a policy, placing numerous Canadian businesses at a competitive disadvantage.



On top of the very limited 10-year deadline to bring GHG emissions 30% below the 2005 level, the Standard will not replace federal and provincial environmental policies already in place; it will complement them. This regulatory duplication will be costly both for companies and for consumers.



Indeed, the CFS will have the effect of increasing production and transport costs for companies using fuels like natural gas, which represents a very large number of companies. And a substantial portion of the bill will be passed on to consumers.



In the manufacturing sector alone, 1.7 million jobs will be affected in Canada, including 300,000 in Quebec. It is impossible to say with any reasonable degree of precision at this stage what portion of these jobs would be lost. Yet one thing is clear: The implementation of this measure will certainly have a negative impact on the level of employment in the manufacturing sector and the Canadian economy in general, since it will add on an extra layer of costs and constraints.



On top of its negative economic effects, its ecological impact remains ambiguous. A major factor that the CFS seems to omit is that climate change is a global phenomenon, not a national one. After all, Canada is responsible for just 1.5% of global GHG emissions. While a regulatory environmental framework is necessary and desirable, the CFS would make countries like China and India more attractive. We could therefore see carbon leakage: Canada's emissions would fall, but given the possible relocation of local companies, the net global effect could well be negative.



The current COVID-19 situation is already adding a number of obstacles to the Canadian economy and international trade. The federal government should encourage economic recovery by being more flexible, not by making the current regulatory framework more restrictive. The CFS will be an extra hurdle for Canadian companies struggling to emerge from the pandemic.



Let's hope that the government reconsiders the CFS, and does a better job of analyzing its future energy policies by their potential results, and not only by the intentions behind them. The current buffet of measures is already leaving many companies far from satisfied; there's no reason to add to that a bitter aftertaste.

[Anonymous]

By Lorrie Goldstein of Sun News Media



SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Trudeau doubles down on 32 years of failed climate policies

In supposedly fighting human-induced climate change, four different Canadian governments headed by four different prime ministers have set eight major national greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in the past 32 years.



They failed to achieve any of them, or were so far behind when they left office, or are so far behind today, that none can be taken seriously.



In keeping with tradition, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a ninth and 10th unattainable target in last week's throne speech, boldly declaring: "The government will immediately bring forward a plan to exceed Canada's 2030 climate goal. The government will also legislate Canada's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050."



Except Trudeau is about to miss his 2020 target.



Since he's nowhere near his 2030 target — which new Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole has foolishly adopted — promising to exceed it is nonsense. Trudeau's 2050 target is a fantasy.



How did we get here? Why are billions of public dollars being spent on dubious policies linked to imaginary targets when real-world results — that is, actually reducing emissions — don't matter, meaning taxpayers are not receiving good value for the money being spent on carbon pricing, carbon taxes and other schemes?



In 1988, Progressive Conservative PM Brian Mulroney set a target of reducing Canada's emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.



Canada's emissions in 1988 were 588 megatonnes (a megatonne, or Mt, is a million tonnes). That made Canada's 2005 target 470 Mt.



When Mulroney left office in 1993, Canada's emissions were 615 Mt — 145 Mt or 31% above his 2005 target.



In 1990, Mulroney set a new target of stabilizing Canada's emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.



Canada's emissions in 1990 were 603 Mt. By 2000, after three years of PC government and seven of Liberal government, they were 731 Mt, missing that target by 128 Mt or 21%.



In 1993, Liberal PM Jean Chretien revived Mulroney's 1988 target of reducing emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.



In 2005, after 12 years under the Liberals, emissions were 730 Mt, missing the Chretien/Mulroney target by 260 Mt, or 55%.



In today's terms, they missed it by more than the annual emissions of Canada's entire oil and gas sector (193 Mt) and electricity sector (64 Mt).



In 1998, Chretien signed the Kyoto accord to reduce Canada's emissions to an average of 6% below 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012. Canada's emissions in 1990 were 603 Mt, making Canada's 2012 target 567 Mt.



When the Liberals lost power in 2006 under Paul Martin, Canada's emissions were 721 Mt, 154 Mt, 27% higher than Chretien's Kyoto target.



Conservative PM Stephen Harper scrapped Kyoto, setting a target in 2010 of reducing Canada's emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Canada's emissions in 2005 were 730 Mt, making Canada's 2020 target 606 Mt.



When the Harper Conservatives lost power in 2015, emissions were



720 Mt, 114 Mt or 19% above their 2020 target.



In 2015, Harper set a target to reduce emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. Emissions in 2005 were 730 Mt, meaning Harper's 2030 target was 511 Mt. He agreed to "decarbonization" by 2100.



When Harper was defeated in 2015, Canada's emissions were



720 Mt, 209 Mt or 41% above his 2030 target.



In 2016, as Chretien had with Mulroney, Trudeau adopted Harper's targets — 17% below 2005 emissions by 2020, 30% below by 2030.



Canada's current emissions are 729 Mt (for 2018, the last year for which figures are available), meaning Trudeau's poised to miss his 2020 target of 606 Mt by 123 Mt or 20%.



He's behind his 2030 target of 511 Mt by 218 Mt or 43%.



Having never hit a target, the Liberals claim they're 77 Mt, or 15% above their 2030 target if all their policies work.



Some argue that without targets there's no pressure to improve.



But after 32 years of failure, the targets are clearly meaningless.



Canada needs an energy policy based on reality and on our strengths — non-emitting nuclear power, low-emitting natural gas, eliminating coal-fired electricity (Trudeau's goal for 2030), plus reducing the carbon intensity of oil production. Basing it on niche players like wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars will fail.



The only time Canada's emissions significantly dropped in the modern era was during the 200809 recession, decreasing by 8% over two years, before rising again in 2010.



They're dropping now because of the COVID-19 recession.



But you can't run an economy based on permanent recessions.

[Anonymous]

I don't have the details on this yet. But, if will mean vetoing new resource projects that create prosperity. It will mean higher energy costs and of course higher costs for everything. It will mean we continue to import energy as it will block only domestic energy development and not foreign imports.



Liberals give road map to a net-zero emissions by 2050 with new climate bill

Bill C-12 will 'cement' promise to mostly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions



OTTAWA — Legislation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said "cements" his promise to mostly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions within 30 years has been introduced in the House of Commons.



"This is an ambitious goal," Trudeau said Thursday morning in a virtual address at a conference as part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum.



t will require Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson to set five-year targets, starting in 2030, for curbing emissions on the way to net-zero emissions by 2050.



Net-zero means either eliminating all emissions or ensuring any still produced are absorbed by natural means like forests and wetlands, or technology like carbon capture and storage systems.



An emissions-reduction plan, progress report and assessment report on each would need to be tabled in the house, and the bill orders the environment commissioner to audit Canada's climate change mitigation measures at least once every five years.

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/liberals-give-road-map-to-a-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-with-new-climate-bill

[Anonymous]

I don't have the details on this yet. But, if will mean vetoing new resource projects that create prosperity. It will mean higher energy costs and of course higher costs for everything. It will mean we continue to import energy as it will block only domestic energy development and not foreign imports.



Liberals give road map to a net-zero emissions by 2050 with new climate bill

Bill C-12 will 'cement' promise to mostly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions



OTTAWA — Legislation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said "cements" his promise to mostly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions within 30 years has been introduced in the House of Commons.



"This is an ambitious goal," Trudeau said Thursday morning in a virtual address at a conference as part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum.



t will require Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson to set five-year targets, starting in 2030, for curbing emissions on the way to net-zero emissions by 2050.



Net-zero means either eliminating all emissions or ensuring any still produced are absorbed by natural means like forests and wetlands, or technology like carbon capture and storage systems.



An emissions-reduction plan, progress report and assessment report on each would need to be tabled in the house, and the bill orders the environment commissioner to audit Canada's climate change mitigation measures at least once every five years.

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/liberals-give-road-map-to-a-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-with-new-climate-bill

This is a road map to zero net economic growth. While this fucked up country does our best to commit economic suicide, the Japanese parliament has wisely exploited climate alarmism and declared a "climate emergency." What does that mean for them? They can now recommission old nuclear power plants and build new ones instead of importing LNG and coal. Japan smart, Canada stupid.

[Anonymous]

I don't have the details on this yet. But, if will mean vetoing new resource projects that create prosperity. It will mean higher energy costs and of course higher costs for everything. It will mean we continue to import energy as it will block only domestic energy development and not foreign imports.



Liberals give road map to a net-zero emissions by 2050 with new climate bill

Bill C-12 will 'cement' promise to mostly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions



OTTAWA — Legislation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said "cements" his promise to mostly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions within 30 years has been introduced in the House of Commons.



"This is an ambitious goal," Trudeau said Thursday morning in a virtual address at a conference as part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum.



t will require Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson to set five-year targets, starting in 2030, for curbing emissions on the way to net-zero emissions by 2050.



Net-zero means either eliminating all emissions or ensuring any still produced are absorbed by natural means like forests and wetlands, or technology like carbon capture and storage systems.



An emissions-reduction plan, progress report and assessment report on each would need to be tabled in the house, and the bill orders the environment commissioner to audit Canada's climate change mitigation measures at least once every five years.

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/liberals-give-road-map-to-a-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-with-new-climate-bill

Sounds like a blueprint to bury Western Canada. But, like you said, it will be bad for all working Canadians. You better than anybody, the resource sector is our largest source of foreign and domestic investment. It also provides the best blue collar jobs in the country. But, Justine would prefer Russia, the US or Brazil get those jobs and then export their oil and LNG back to Canada.

[Anonymous]

Our biggest export industry is oil and gas, and you can be sure they will not have a voice at the table even though they have have done more to lower their emissions through technology(and continue to do so) than any other sector of the economy.

[Anonymous]

:001_tongue:

I don't have the details on this yet. But, if will mean vetoing new resource projects that create prosperity. It will mean higher energy costs and of course higher costs for everything. It will mean we continue to import energy as it will block only domestic energy development and not foreign imports.



Liberals give road map to a net-zero emissions by 2050 with new climate bill

Bill C-12 will 'cement' promise to mostly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions



OTTAWA — Legislation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said "cements" his promise to mostly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions within 30 years has been introduced in the House of Commons.



"This is an ambitious goal," Trudeau said Thursday morning in a virtual address at a conference as part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum.



t will require Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson to set five-year targets, starting in 2030, for curbing emissions on the way to net-zero emissions by 2050.



Net-zero means either eliminating all emissions or ensuring any still produced are absorbed by natural means like forests and wetlands, or technology like carbon capture and storage systems.



An emissions-reduction plan, progress report and assessment report on each would need to be tabled in the house, and the bill orders the environment commissioner to audit Canada's climate change mitigation measures at least once every five years.

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/liberals-give-road-map-to-a-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-with-new-climate-bill

Prepare to be gouged even more.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau, the NDP and the Greens approach to climate change lacks common sense and does nothing to move the climate needle.



After deliberately turning itself into a climate-change martyr, Canada needs some basic common sense

For all the economic, social and national unity pain inflicted, our sacrifices will have no perceptible impact on global climate change

It's been almost three decades since delegates from 172 countries, meeting at the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, adopted the Climate Change Convention. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data show that since then the Earth's temperature has risen an average of 0.03 degrees Celsius per year. At that rate, the planet will warm 2.4 degrees by 2100. That's a sizable amount over 80 years but it's certainly not the "climate emergency" needed to galvanize people into making life-altering sacrifices like giving up cars or air travel or switching to "eco-friendly" food.



After New York, Greta journeyed to Alberta where she held an anti-oilsands rally, a puzzling choice given that Canada produces just 1.6 per cent of global emissions, with the oilsands contributing just a tenth of that. Why didn't she travel to China or India, whose emissions make Canada's just a rounding error? While she was in Edmonton, the ever-determined reporters at Rebel Media asked her that question. Her answer? She "hadn't been invited." No doubt that's true, but her disparaging visit to Canada's oilsands is yet another illustration of activists' fixation on Western countries even though virtually all emissions growth is in the East.



China, India, South Africa, South Korea, the Philippines and Japan, all signatories to the Paris climate accord, are in various stages of constructing a total of 1,800 coal-fired power plants. If Canada disappeared from the face of the Earth, those new plants would replace our emissions in a few short months.



There's little doubt Greta's visit also impacted the outcome of the federal election. Massive media coverage of her climate emergency message increased support for Trudeau's national carbon tax, a task made easier by Andrew Scheer's failure to clearly explain why the Conservative environmental policy would more effectively reduce global emissions. That shouldn't have been difficult. Virtually all experts agree the carbon tax would have to be several times higher than planned to have any perceptible impact on global emissions. By contrast, the cornerstone of the Conservative environmental platform was recognition that Canadian natural gas exports could help halve poor-country emissions by switching their power plants from coal to natural gas. The industry hoped the government would push recognition of that reality at the recent Madrid climate conference but was, once again, disappointed.



Canada's preoccupation with national rather than global emissions leads to myriad "local action" absurdities. The award for most ludicrous goes to Victoria City Council for its plan to spend $14 million installing shore power so cruise ships can shut off their generators while moored at city docks. Council clearly doesn't understand that emissions caused by actually propelling the ships after they leave port are hundreds of times greater than their generators produce.



More tragic than ludicrous is the systematic destruction of one of the world's most technically advanced and ethically responsible oil industries. Though hundreds of thousands of trained workers have been rendered jobless and in many cases hopeless as capital investment and corporate headquarters have fled to the U.S., world oil consumption is six million barrels a day higher than it was in 2010, while the International Energy Agency forecasts demand will keep rising for at least two decades. Yet the Trudeau Liberals' progressive evisceration of our oil industry has handed that growing market to such human rights champions as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria and Algeria. Adding insult to injury, Quebec, consistent with its "distinct society" status, favours its own interests over those of the country at large and continues to import oil from those countries in preference to Alberta's "dirty oil."



No other country has so deliberately turned itself into a climate-change martyr. And yet for all the economic, social and national unity pain inflicted, our sacrifices will have no perceptible impact on global climate change. Entering the third decade of this troubled millennium, we can only hope our federal government realizes the future of our confederation requires trading blind ideology for basic common sense.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-after-deliberately-turning-itself-into-a-climate-change-martyr-canada-needs-some-basic-common-sense

[Anonymous]

They shouldn't have bought it in the first place, but private investors got tired of Trudeau's regulatory games and lest, like most resource investment in the last five years. Now, the governments misguideddomestic emissions centric climate agenda could make it difficult to find a buyer for the pipeline. 



Feds to lose money on TMX with tighter climate policy

PBO says pipeline's future value rests on Liberals' plans



OTTAWA — The federal government could end up losing money on the Trans Mountain pipeline if it further tightens its climate policy



The increased capacity wouldn't come on line until the end of 2022.



The budget officer said the pipeline remains profitable based on expected cash flows, estimating the government could make $ 600 million above its purchase price.

[Anonymous]

They shouldn't have bought it in the first place, but private investors got tired of Trudeau's regulatory games and lest, like most resource investment in the last five years. Now, the governments misguideddomestic emissions centric climate agenda could make it difficult to find a buyer for the pipeline. 



Feds to lose money on TMX with tighter climate policy

PBO says pipeline's future value rests on Liberals' plans



OTTAWA — The federal government could end up losing money on the Trans Mountain pipeline if it further tightens its climate policy



The increased capacity wouldn't come on line until the end of 2022.



The budget officer said the pipeline remains profitable based on expected cash flows, estimating the government could make $ 600 million above its purchase price.

Trudeau's precious domestic emissions targets must come first. Who cares about lost jobs, higher energy imports, and the fact that all the damage that goof inflicts in the name of the Paris Agreement will not stop the climate from changing.

[Anonymous]

The maritime provinces are reliably Liberal, but that could change if he throws average Atlantic Canadian families under the bus in his selfish pursuit of accolades from the UN for his climate "leadership."



By Anthony Furey of Sun News Media



Fuel concerns come standard

Atlantic provinces push back against '2nd carbon tax'



Canada's Atlantic provinces stand united with their concerns about the federal Liberal government's "second carbon tax."



A joint letter signed by the energy ministers of the four provinces and sent to federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson opposes the incoming Clean Fuel Standard "in its present form" due to its "disproportionately negative economic impact on Atlantic Canadians" and requests the federal Liberal government make changes.



"While we support efforts to reduce emissions, we have some shared concerns about the proposed Clean Fuel Standard (CFS) and the impact it will have on the Atlantic economy and on Atlantic Canadians who have the highest levels of energy poverty in Canada," said the letter. "Statistics Canada data shows 13% of Atlantic Canadians experience energy poverty compared to the Canadian average of 8%."



The signatories are New Brunswick Natural Resources and Energy Development Minister Mike Holland, Newfoundland and Labrador Industry, Energy and Technology Minister Andrew Parsons, Nova Scotia Energy and Mines Minister Derek Mombourquette and Prince Edward Island Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy Minister Steven Myers.



The stated purpose of the CFS — described by critics as nothing more than a second carbon tax — is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 million tonnes per year.



But it will not come without its costs to consumers and industry. A 2019 study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute estimated CFS costs include gas price increases of five to 11 cents per litre by 2030 and that it will cost the Canadian economy between $7.6 billion and $15.3 billion per year. This includes $1 billion to $2 billion per year of added costs on the oil and gas sector.



The letter goes on to note that the effects of the CFS "will occur at a critical time as our economies are already struggling to recover from the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic." Dan McTeague, president of Canadians for Affordable Energy, isn't surprised to hear this response.



"Atlantic provinces are united in their concern about what we've been saying since August: (Prime Minister Justin) Trudeau's second carbon tax will hurt Atlantic Canadians struggling with energy poverty more disproportionately," McTeague, who was a Liberal MP from 1993 to 2011, said in an email to the Sun.



The provinces request that the feds conduct and share the results of a provincial/territorial cost-benefit analysis and the start time is pushed back to 2023 or 2024.



The Nova Scotia government said that while it is supportive of efforts to reduce emissions, the province's higher dependence on heating oil added to its concerns about the CFS.



"We are requesting a well-studied and customized approach for achieving those results in the Atlantic region that will not increase energy costs for residents and businesses in our area," said Patricia Jriege, a spokesperson for the Nova Scotia government, in an email to Postmedia Network. "To that end, the Atlantic provinces have requested a deeper analysis of the specific needs of Atlantic Canada before the publication of the draft CFS regulations." It's this analysis that McTeague believed will expose the true costs of the CFS for the whole country.



"Their conclusion that Ottawa has failed to provide a proper cost-benefit analysis, which we estimate will hurt Canadians by a factor of 6-1, speaks to just how damaging this policy will be as Trudeau attempts to ram through another devastating carbon tax that will hurt the country's most impoverished regions at precisely the wrong time," said McTeague.



"Statistics Canada data shows 13% of Atlantic Canadians experience energy poverty compared to the Canadian average of 8%." Joint letter signed by Atlantic provinces' energy ministers

[Anonymous]

Trudeau's troubling climate evangelism



Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on Friday that the Liberals plan to triple the federal carbon tax.



Not just increase it by a smidge. Not double it. But triple it. The original plan was for the tax to hit $50 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions by 2022. Now they've announced it will continue to ramp up to $170 per tonne by 2030.



This increase is going to have major consequences for regular Canadians and the economy at large.



One of the effects most directly felt by consumers is that, when all is said and done, the carbon tax will add just under 40 cents per litre to the cost of gasoline.



Again: That's not 40 cents every time you fill up at the pump. That's per litre.



Trudeau chose Friday to make this announcement because it was the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Paris agreement, the occasion that first tethered Canada to these needless commitments.



While most world leaders understand that such agreements are really just aspirational goals and shouldn't be taken that seriously, Trudeau and his climate activist fans have acted like the Paris deal is some sort of legally binding gun to our heads.



What a lot of Canadians probably don't realize is that their own emissions have actually dropped considerably. Per capita emissions in Canada decreased 20% between 2000 and 2017, largely due to energy efficiency. It is only because our population is growing that total national emissions are not decreasing.



The carbon was always a bad idea. This increase, during the pandemic, makes things even worse.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau insist on doubling down on what isn't working. Hundreds of billions of dollars of investment leaving the country along with over one hundred thousand good full time jobs be damned. The most important thing for Trudeau is his climate goals.



By Lorne Gunter of Sun News Media



Thanks for nothing, Trudeau

Liberal government's 'green' schemes tanked Alberta's economy with little to show for it



Since coming to power five years ago, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government have run Canada's energy industry into the ground, and Alberta's economy right along with it.



For the first four years of this deliberate nosedive, the Liberals were aided by Alberta's own NDP government that went along with every cockamamie "green" scheme Ottawa concocted.



No doubt the Trudeauites would never admit their goal was the willful destruction of the oil and gas industry or the knocking of Alberta off its economic perch. But there's no arguing the results.

Alberta has one of Canada's highest unemployment rates. And according to Statistics Canada figures, Canada has lost about $ 200 billion in energy investment since Trudeau came to power in 2015.


What makes all this truly infuriating is that it has all been for nothing, environmentally.



All of the suffering the Liberals have dumped on Alberta has failed to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions.



So the question following the Liberals' introduction last week of an even more ambitious, anti-oil agenda – with its nearly 600 per cent increase in the carbon tax over the next decade – has to be, "What makes you think even more devastation will produce better results than your efforts over the past five years?"



The Liberals' obsession with transitioning Canada to a low-carbon, net-zero-emissions economy has become cultish. If a high level of sacrifice fails to please the climate goddess, then try a higher level. And a higher one.



And here's the kick in the teeth. Canada's sacrifice, Alberta's sacrifice isn't working.



Last week the United Nations Environment Programme released its annual "emissions gap" report comparing the level of emissions countries are actually producing versus the level they promised in the Paris accord five year ago.



Can you guess one of the world's biggest scofflaws? That's right, the Justin Trudeau-led country called Canada.



The report puts a lot of emphasis on the performance of G20 countries. Being the world's 20 largest economies, they produce roughly

70 per cent of global emissions.



The UN says nine are doing fairly well at working towards their Paris commitments, six are so-so, but five "Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Republic of Korea and the United States," have made little if any progress.



The U.S. is no longer party to the 2015 Paris accords. And Australia and Brazil were uninvited from last weekend's UN virtual climate summit because they refused to offer enough sacrifice to appease the United Nations gods.



That leaves Canada and South Korea as the two major economies at the bottom of the eco-pile.



In their five years in office, the Trudeau government has killed two pipelines – Energy East and Northern Gateway – and still not completed a third – Trans Mountain. It has choked off Teck Resources' $21-billion Frontier oilsands development (despite the project having support from all the Indigenous communities in the area).



And implemented a review regime for mega-projects that makes future ones next to impossible.



It has banned tankers full of Alberta oil (but not B.C. natural gas ) from navigating the northern B.C. coast and imposed a carbon tax it is now going to jack up sky high.



Plus, the Liberal are rushing through legislation that will give the anti-development United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples legal standing in Canadian courts. At that point, Trans Mountain, Coastal Gas Link pipeline and B.C.'s Site C Dam might all stop.



And yet by the Liberal government's own figures, Canada's emissions are about two per cent higher than they were when Trudeau took office.



All of the pain the Liberals have inflicted in the name of saving the planet has been for naught. And now they want to inflict more.



In their five years in office, the Trudeau government has killed two pipelines – Energy East and Northern Gateway – and still not completed a third – Trans Mountain.