The uselessness of Canada's climate alarmism

[Shen Li]

SE Asia is using their resources to adapt to climate change rather than follow Canada's failed climate policies of forcing poverty on it's citizens.

[caskur]

SE Asia is using their resources to adapt to climate change rather than follow Canada's failed climate policies of forcing poverty on it's citizens.

Indonesia is ripping out the rain forests... they are environmental vandals.

[DKG]

SE Asia is using their resources to adapt to climate change rather than follow Canada's failed climate policies of forcing poverty on it's citizens.

It's a lot cheaper and produces real results. Trying at all costs to reduce our international rounding error emissions is so short sighted as well as expensive.

[Shen Li]

It's a lot cheaper and produces real results. Trying at all costs to reduce our international rounding error emissions is so short sighted as well as expensive.

Singapore introduced a carbon tax, but it isn't like Canada's. It is more like the one Alberta used to have on large emitters.

[Herman]

It aint just one province. Right across the country, agriculture costs are soaring because of Justine's carbon tax.

The crushing impact of the federal carbon tax on agriculture
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-the-crushing-impact-of-the-federal-carbon-tax-on-agriculture

Alberta is a centre for advanced agricultural practices and irrigation, yet the federal carbon tax stands as a formidable challenge.

It is particularly damaging to the province's competitiveness in exporting crops, including the export hay market. Designed to reduce carbon emissions, this tax inadvertently threatens the viability of our most vital agricultural exports by inflating farm and freight costs, eventually eroding market share.

The carbon tax's effect is severe on all operations that produce crops or add value to primary crops. This sector's reliance on energy-intensive processes such as seeding, harvesting and baling, which are powered by diesel-fuelled machinery, means that every uptick in fuel costs driven by the tax directly diminishes profitability, forcing farmers to raise prices in the domestic market.

Value-added operations are saddled with the tax that increases freight, drying and utility costs directly. The damage extends across all ag sectors, including potatoes, sugar beets, canola, peas and specialty grains. These crops undergo additional processing to enhance their market value — cleaning, sorting and packaging — all of which consume significant energy, now more costly due to the carbon tax. Grocery prices have to increase to cover the carbon tax burden.

This tax places Alberta's agricultural export producers at a stark disadvantage. Our main competitors, notably from the United States, are not subject to such fiscal burdens. They benefit from lower production costs, affording them a competitive edge in pricing their products on the international market. As a result, Alberta's value-added crops are at risk of being priced out of the market, potentially costing not only immediate sales but also relationships with global buyers.

[Herman]

Justine says there aint no business case to be made for LNG export facilities. Business says Justine is an idiot.

LNG exports offer a wealth-creating way to reduce global emissions
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-lng-exports-offer-a-wealth-creating-way-to-reduce-global-emissions

Pierre Poilievre's Axe the (carbon) Tax campaign is a spectacular success. But the Conservative party needs its own plan to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Paradoxically, it's a fossil fuel that provides the answer.

Canada's rich endowment of natural gas offers us the chance to both reduce global emissions and also rescue a Canadian economy ravaged by the Liberal government.

How? By exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) to China, Japan, South Korea and the other coal-dependent Asia-Pacific countries. Switching from coal to natural gas reduces CO2 emissions by 50 per cent while also eliminating the toxic compounds and lung-clogging particulates that shorten the lives of millions in Asian cities.

A November 2022 study by respected consulting firm Wood Mackenzie concluded that:

· "Canada is well-positioned geographically: Western Canadian LNG is much closer to Asia relative to the U.S. Gulf Coast LNG, which needs to be shipped to Asia through the Panama Canal."

· "LNG from Canada would be cost-competitive for northeast Asian importers."

· "Asia will not be able to produce enough natural gas domestically to meet its escalating demand. With its high environmental standards and stewardship, Canada would be a great partner to fill the LNG demand gap."

In 2010, there were more than 20 LNG projects in the works in British Columbia, representing hundreds of billions in investment. These included ExxonMobil's $25-billion West Coast Canada project, Chinese-owned CNOOC's $36-billion Aurora project, Malaysian firm Petronas's $36-billion Pacific Northwest project and the Shell-led $31-billion Kitimat LNG Canada project.

After a decade of trying to navigate Canada's byzantine regulatory process, LNG Canada is the only one left standing. And it succeeded only because South African project leader Andy Calitz refused to give up.

After five years of construction, the LNG Canada terminal is nearing completion with the first ship scheduled to sail to China in mid-2025. The $31 billion invested in the Kitimat liquefaction plant is just one component of Canada's first LNG export project. TC Energy Corp's $15-billion Coastal GasLink will carry natural gas from northeastern B.C. gas fields to the Kitimat terminal.

The economic benefits are myriad. B.C. natural gas royalties are forecast to double, from $700 million in 2024 to $1.4 billion in 2027. There are significant employment and business opportunities for First Nations, including Haisla Marine's 50 per cent interest in a $500-million contract.

A major barrier for LNG project sponsors has been the fixation of Canadian regulators on the project's domestic emissions, which are minuscule compared to the global emissions reductions they make possible. Rather than let the project use on-site natural gas-powered electricity generation, regulators insisted that LNG Canada use zero-emissions hydropower. Having BC Hydro build a new dam and costly new transmission line delayed the project significantly.

Before COP24, the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, in 2018, the federal Conservatives urged the leaders of the Canadian delegation to propose that national emissions reductions include reductions from displacement of coal with exported LNG. Our prime minister and his team of anti-fossil fuel eco-zealots declined this advice. A new government that encourages LNG projects may well see a return of the ExxonMobil, CNOOC and Petronas projects driven off by government intransigence.

As an alternative to the carbon tax, LNG export not only does better in emissions reduction but it also creates tens of billions of dollars in economic benefits for a beleaguered Canadian private sector.

Stepped-up LNG export is a vastly superior environmental alternative to the economically destructive and politically divisive carbon tax, and it would help reverse a proud, thriving nation's decline into an indebted, unproductive, government-dominated basket case.

[Brent]

This appered in the Sun newspaper chain. Trudeau is throwing good after bad.

Even as the much-vaunted electric vehicle (EV) transition slams into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario's Ford government will pour another $5 billion in subsidies into Honda, which plans to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario.

This comes on top of a long list of other such "investments" including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution, $13 billion for Volkswagen (with a real cost to Ottawa of $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.

Some would-be EV makers or users are postponing their own EV investments. Ford has killed its electric F-150 pickup truck, Hertz is dumping one-third of its fleet of EV rental vehicles and Swedish EV company Polestar dropped 15% of its global workforce while Tesla is cutting 10% of its global staff.

And in the U.S., a much larger potential market for EVs, a recent Gallup poll shows a market turning frosty. The percentage of Americans polled by Gallup who said they're seriously considering buying an EV has been declining from 12% in 2023 to 9% in 2024. Even more troubling for would-be EV sellers is that only 35% of poll respondents in 2024 said they "might consider" buying an EV in the future. That number is down from 43% in 2023.

Overall, according to Gallup, "less than half of adults, 44%, now say they are either seriously considering or might consider buying an EV in the future, down from 55% in 2023, while the proportion not intending to buy one has increased from 41% to 48%." In other words, in a future where government wants sellers to only sell EVs, almost half the U.S. public doesn't want to buy one.

And yet, Canada's governments are hitting the gas pedal on EVs, putting the hard-earned capital of Canadian taxpayers at significant risk. A smart government would have its finger in the wind and would slow down when faced with road bumps. It might even reset its GPS and change the course of its 2035 EV mandate for vehicles few motorists want to buy.

[Herman]

Jonathan -

A new report from S&P Global has confirmed our worst fears about Justin Trudeau's reckless oil and gas production cap. The findings are devastating:

❌ 51,000 jobs obliterated annually: This cap will destroy our workforce.

❌ $247 billion in GDP wiped out by 2035: An economic disaster nationwide.

❌ Over 2 million barrels per day shut down: Alberta will suffer most, but all provinces will feel the pain.

This independent report focuses only on conventional oil production. The impact on the oilsands, which are a major part of Alberta's economy, would be even more devastating.

This cap is a ticking time bomb. It attacks our jobs, economy, and future without lowering global emissions—just shifting production to more polluting countries.

Alberta has already cut emissions per barrel by 23% since 2009 and will cut another 17%. We don't need the Trudeau-NDP's unconstitutional cap. We need to protect our industry and invest in effective technologies.

The Trudeau-NDP's reckless and stubborn agenda is putting Alberta's jobs, Canada's economy, and billions in investments at risk. They're desperate and dangerous, especially now that they're tanking in the polls. We must unite to stop this madness.

[Brent]

Canadians know they are worse off with Trudeau's carbon tax.

Trudeau's carbon tax makes 80% of us better off? Prove it

The Trudeau government has a simple way to bolster its claim eight out of 10 Canadian households paying the federal carbon tax end up better off financially because of quarterly climate action incentive payments.

All it has to do is to publicly release a large electronic file from Environment and Climate Change Canada, paid for by taxpayers, regarding:

"The impact of carbon pricing on national and provincial gross domestic product for the period 2022 to 2030, which reflects Environment and Climate Change Canada's estimates of the impact of carbon pricing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions published in the report entitled, 'How Pollution Pricing Reduces Emissions.'

and

"The economic impacts of carbon pricing in each province and territory (and for Canada as a whole) by sector for the period 2022 to 2030:
o The impact of carbon pricing on gross value added.
o The corresponding impacts on real (inflation-adjusted) investment (capital) and labour incomes, that is, the income components of gross domestic product."

Parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux has this file and knows what it says, because he requested it from Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault on April 30.

His ministry sent the information to Giroux on May 14, authorized by the deputy minister.

But Giroux can't release it because the ministry told him, "the data the Department is providing contains unpublished information. As such, I request you to ensure that this information is used for your office's internal purposes only and is not published or further distributed."

Why the secrecy?

Giroux told the Commons finance committee this week the Trudeau government's own research on the economic impact of its carbon tax on our economy, mirrors his own research.

In 2020, Giroux reported that when one considers only the fiscal impact of the carbon tax, eight of 10 households end up better off because of rebates, which the Trudeau government cites constantly to defend its tax.

However, in subsequent reports in March 2022 and March 2023, Giroux said that when one factors in the negative impact of the carbon tax on the economy by lowering Canada's GDP and reducing business investment and labour income, six out of 10 households actually end up worse off, despite the rebates.

The Trudeau government has always disputed this finding and tried to discredit it.

The disagreement escalated after Giroux said on the PBO's website in April that in assessing the negative economic impact of the carbon tax — also known as the federal fuel charge — he mistakenly included a separate carbon pricing program for large industrial emitters, called the output-based pricing system.

Giroux said his office will release a new report in the fall, focusing on the negative economic impact of the federal fuel charge, while noting he didn't think the numbers will be very different because 80% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions are exempted under the output-based pricing system.

He also said the environment ministry's own data about the negative economic impact of the carbon tax mirrors his own.

So all the Trudeau government has to do is to release its internal data to show Giroux is either wrong or not telling the truth. But it hasn't. Why?

On Wednesday, Guilbeault told The Canadian Press Giroux's suggestion his department is hiding this information is ridiculous because, it "makes no sense" to tell Giroux not to speak about data it provided for an analysis that will be made public.

This despite his ministry's written instructions to Giroux not to release that data.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeaus-carbon-tax-makes-80-of-us-better-off-prove-it

[Herman]

Trudeau's Minister tried to cover up the true cost of the Carbon Tax. When adjusted for inflation, it's a staggering $30 BILLION/yr hit to the Canadian economy.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-pricing-gdp-report-1.7233270

[Brent]

Facing accusations from Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre that it was hiding the true cost of carbon pricing from Canadians, the Trudeau government on Thursday acknowledged it will cost our economy $25 billion, or almost 1% of GDP, in 2030.

The release of the numbers vindicated Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux, who said the government had data similar to his own research that it had conveyed to his office, but had refused to allow him to release.

Giroux reported in March 2022 that the combination of the federal fuel charge (what we've come to refer to as the carbon tax) and the output-based pricing system for large industrial emitters, would reduce Canada's GDP in 2030 by 1.3%.

[DKG]

The Trudeau government's climate change plan will cost Canadian workers $6,700 annually by 2030, cut national employment by 164,000 jobs and fail to achieve promised emission reduction targets, according to a new study by University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-carbon-pricing-to-cost-workers-6700-annually-report

Trudeau's carbon tax is one of the world's most expensive virtual signalling white elephants.

[DKG]

Recent heat waves in Ontario and Western Canada forced energy providers to warn people not to charge their ev's. The good news is that I believe a pragmatic PP government will kill Trudeau's impossible ev mandate.

Trudeau's electric car mandate breaks the bank

Alberta's energy regulator recently warned people to stop using kitchen appliances because the electricity grid was at risk of blacking out. Albertans were told to stop cooking on stoves and washing clothes in warm water.

You know, modern life, circa 1955.

The government also told us not to charge electric cars. If we're being told to stop using toasters, how are we going to charge our government-mandated EVs?

The Trudeau government is banning the sale of new gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035. This plan is a non-starter for two key reasons:

The EV mandate will likely cost a shocking amount of money for taxpayers and Canada doesn't have the electricity to power these vehicles.

Let's look at costs first.

Multiple levels of government have pledged about $57 billion to corporations that make EVs, including billions for Volkswagen and Honda.

That's the corporate welfare cost, with governments dumping taxpayers' money into the boardrooms of Berlin and Tokyo.

Then there's the sticker price of the EVs.

If the Trudeau government forces Canadians to buy only these types of new vehicles, it will sharply increase costs for people.

The cheapest new EV in Canada sells for about $41,000, with a vehicle like a Nissan Leaf eligible for a $5,000 rebate from the feds.

Last year, Canadians bought about 1.7 million new vehicles, the majority of them being cars, SUVs and light trucks. If those vehicles were all EVs, the cost of the rebates would be about $8 billion.

With the cheapest new gasoline-powered sedan selling for about $21,000, and with no rebate costs to taxpayers, there's a strong sticker shock in that price difference for both the person buying the car and taxpayers.

What about power bills?

The average Canadian household uses about 10,861 kWh of electricity per year. The average electric car uses about 4,310 kWh of energy per year, according to EVBox, a company that produces electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The average family's electricity use would jump by about 40% if it had one EV and charged it at home.

Where is the electricity for these EVs coming from?

Calculations done in British Columbia show that, if everyone switched to an electric car in B.C., the province would need about nine new Site C Dams.

Site C has cost about $16 billion and has taken about 10 years to build. Creating nine new Site C Dams tomorrow would cost about $144 billion.

In Alberta, hydro dams aren't happening and building a regular nuclear reactor costs about $15 billion and takes about 10 years to complete.

Alberta is home to about three million vehicles and, if they were electric, that fleet would use about 12.9 million MWh of power per year. The province would require about three nuclear plants to charge those vehicles.

Who's paying that tab? Taxpayers? Folks opening their power bills?

We've seen this bad movie before.

Around 2015, the Ontario government signed contracts to buy "green" energy and folks faced surging power bills, with some eclipsing $1,000 per month.

Ontario's auditor general found people overpaid on their power bills by $37 billion because of government meddling with the electricity system.

Today, record numbers of working families across Canada are visiting food banks and about half of Canadians are within $200 every month of not being able to make the minimum payments on their bills. They can't afford higher power bills.

If Albertans are being told to eat cereal for supper to save the electricity grid today, where is the energy and money going to come from to charge up the Trudeau trolley parked in the driveway tomorrow?

We don't know all the inevitable costs of Trudeau's EV mandate, but everything we do know shows we can't afford it.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/sims-trudeaus-electric-car-mandate-breaks-the-bank

[formosan]

Two weeks ago when we were in the middle of a longer than normal heat wave, we were strongly advised not to charge electric vehicles or use air conditioning.

[DKG]

Trudeau's vehicle transormation plans would require 15.3% more power generation. That is the equivalent of ten mega dams or 13 natural gas power plants.