Canada Stunted By Eco-Fantasies

[Anonymous]

We do resources better than anyone, but we continue to kneecap opportunities for our middle class. I'm losing faith in this country's medium to long term prospects.

There are two energy worlds on display this week.



There is the real one; the one full of production estimates and demand projections, investment reports and terms like "tight oil" and "upstream cost declines."



Then there is the unreal one playing out in Bonn, Germany at the United Nations' annual climate conference. It's full of high-blown theories and magical solutions to over-hyped problems, plus calls for higher taxes and greater regulation backed by "green" politicians and bureaucrats.



And guess which energy world Canada is far more active in?



That's right, the eco-fantasy world in which participants believe if they just tax us all enough and spend enough money on alternate-energy subsidies, they can magically transform our economies into equally prosperous ones in which none of us use carbon-based fuels and we all have jobs as smartphone app designers, pour-over coffee artists or bike-repair techs.





After three years of bleak news in the real energy world, some good news actually emerged last week. The independent International Energy Agency (IEA) released its assessment of the state of energy use and production.



Between now and 2040, energy demand around the world will increase by nearly a third – or roughly by the amount of energy currently being consumed by China and India, the world's largest and fourth-largest energy consumers, respectively.



And the good news for the oil and gas sector is that oil and natural gas will both continue to supply large portions of the increasing demand, even if demand for "green" energies and electric vehicles grows substantially.



Also, prices should, at the very least, stabilize.



The IEA estimates the worst-case scenario over the next 20 years will be oil at US$50 to US$70, even if e-cars, wind and solar take off. Under the best-case, oil should climb to between US$80 and US$110.



China, in particular, is likely to see a huge jump in its demand, perhaps 40% above it's current 15.5 million barrels per day.



But the good news does not trickle down to Canada.



According to the IEA, because of self-imposed "green" policies by the federal government, and by the provincial governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, while "Canada is well placed to export oil to China ... this is dependent on the construction of additional export capacity (i.e. pipelines) to bring inland production to the Pacific coast."



And the IEA estimates the political climate in Canada could well prevent the construction of that capacity.



We have the oil. We can extract it. And the production of our oilsands could create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs across the country in engineering, manufacturing, finance, transportation and service.



But instead, Canada will be stuck on the sidelines due largely to "self-restraint and rules."



Our production could rise to 6.2 million barrels per day from 4.5 million if we stopped being the world's Climate Boy Scout. But the IEA believes that is so unlikely that it has lowered its estimate of the amount of new investment we can expect in our oil and gas sector from $1.7 trillion to just $1.0 trillion.



That's $700 billion of real-world losses for real-world families.



Then there is the enviro gong-show in Bonn.



There, international bureaucrats, "green" politicians and eco-activists – nearly 25,000 of them – have gathered in fossil-fuel heated meeting halls and elaborate tents to guzzle trainloads of champagne and down planeloads of shrimp flown in fresh from halfway around the world, all while reassuring one another their hot-air festival is saving the planet.



These annual gab-a-thons never produce anything but reams of paper full of meaningless promises. Maybe that's why the Trudeau, Wynne and Notley governments are so good at them.

http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-canadas-enviro-theories-fly-in-the-face-of-reality/wcm/34eb10e8-d319-4c72-9152-b6626f74517f">http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnis ... 626f74517f">http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-canadas-enviro-theories-fly-in-the-face-of-reality/wcm/34eb10e8-d319-4c72-9152-b6626f74517f

[Anonymous]

From  Lorrie Goldstein.

 

Trudeau's regime is so full of shit. That inept asshole is optics over results.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to divert public attention away from the embarrassing reality Canada is far behind fulfilling his 2015 Paris climate accord commitments to reduce our industrial greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions linked to climate change.



That's why Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna is declaring a "war on coal," in conjunction with the U.K., at this week's annual United Nations' gabfest on climate change in Bonn, Germany.



That the Trudeau Liberals are posing as world leaders on getting rid of coal to produce electricity — the top source of industrial GHG emissions globally — is absurd.



While Canada gets only 10% of its electricity from coal — compared, for example, to China and India at 70%, Germany at 40% and the U.S. at 30% — this has nothing to do with anything Trudeau, McKenna and the federal Liberals have done.



They inherited that 10% figure when they took office in 2015, because Canada gets most of its electricity from hydro and nuclear power.



For domestic political reasons, McKenna is especially targeting the United States, where President Donald Trump has announced America plans to withdraw from the Paris accord and revive its coal industry.



"If the U.S. is going to step back, we've said we're going to step up, and that's exactly what we'll be doing," said McKenna, a clever turn of phrase, typical of Liberal spin doctors in the Trudeau government, that is meaningless in reality.



That's because mainly for reasons of economics, rather than environmentalism, the use of coal to produce electricity has plummeted in the U.S. in recent years.



It's also a major reason why, over the past decade, the U.S., without imposing a national carbon price, has reduced its GHG emissions at a rate five times faster than Canada.



The Americans are replacing coal-fired electricity with cheaper electricity derived from natural gas power generation, using natural gas freed from huge domestic reserves through the use of fracking.



For that reason, the use of coal to produce electricity in the U.S. has plummeted from 40% of all power generation in 2011 to 30% today.



Mainly because natural gas burns at half the carbon intensity of coal, total U.S. GHG emissions dropped 11.5% below 2005 levels (the base year for calculations for Canada and the U.S.) over the past decade, compared to only 2.2% for Canada.



Between 2014 and 2015, the last year for which statistics are available, U.S. emissions dropped 2.3%, compared to 0.69% for Canada.



The fact this year's annual UN carbon-spewing climate gabfest is being held in Germany is ironic, given that Germany has lectured Canada about not doing enough to reduce our GHG emissions.



However, while German officials love to boast that Germany gets 35% of its electricity from renewable energy, it gets 40% of it from coal, compared to 10% for Canada.



What's more, over half of Germany's power generation from coal comes from extremely dirty lignite or brown call.



Rather than touting yet another Liberal promise to phase out the use of coal to produce electricity in Canada by 2030, McKenna should answer two questions this week in Bonn.



First, will Canada meet Trudeau's Paris commitments to reduce our GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 leaves by 2020 and by 30% by 2030? Second, if so, how will it do this, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Quebec's chattering classes only hate Western Canadian oil that pays for equalization payments. The 750,

000 barrels a day that arrives in Eastern Canada from the US and OPEC countries is fine with them.

Can you remember the last time a civic election more than 3,000 km away from here felt as if it were a meaningful political event happening at home?



You could hear a good number Alberta political types cheering last week as Denis Coderre, once a federal Liberal cabinet minister, went down in flames in his bid for re-election as mayor of Montreal.



Coderre had been vocally opposed to TransCanada Pipelines' now-defunct Energy East project, which would have delivered oilsands crude from Hardisty, Alta., to tidewater in Saint John, N.B., passing through Quebec.



The project, which would have seen an existing gas pipeline converted to carry oil and new pipelines built mainly in Quebec and New Brunswick, was shelved in early October.



While the company cited business and market conditions, there's no denying the effect of onerous environmental conditions set by the National Energy Board and strong opposition from politicians in areas where the pipeline would have been built.



I've been saying since Day 1 that (TransCanada was) arrogant and condescending," Coderre told media shortly after the project's cancellation. "It's an enormous victory."



Funny how a month later, Montreal voters would deem Coderre arrogant and condescending, and hand him an enormous electoral loss.



If you're still enthusiastically setting off your noisemakers at the news of Coderre's comeuppance, I'm going to suggest it's time you put them away.



There is absolutely no indication the new mayor of Canada's second-largest city will be any more open-minded about pipelines than the previous occupant of its highest elected office.



In an exuberant televised victory speech after a stunning win, Coderre's replacement, Valerie Plante, was the picture of positivity.



She switched back and forth seamlessly from French to English and back again, thanking her supporters and reiterating her election pledges.



Addressing higher orders of government, she offered to work with them to get all manner of infrastructure built.



Then she reached out to commerce types.



"To my friends in the business community, Montreal is open for business," she declared in English, followed by a hearty laugh and cheers from the crowd.



"Yes it is. And what we are looking for are value-added investments that will benefit all Montrealers.



"So let's work together to get things done ... to find the best opportunities for startups and our small businesses. Let's create the best environment to invest in Montreal."



This all sounds very lovely.



But to be open for business and wanting stuff built doesn't necessarily mean to be open for just any kind of business and to build just any kind of infrastructure.



While news reports regarding Plante's positions on pipelines have been hard to come by, there was one telling message she sent on Twitter on the day of Energy East's cancellation.



"Great citizen-driven victory in the Energy East file!" she wrote in French on Oct. 5. "We must now begin our transition to clean energy."



Yup, definitely put away those noisemakers now.



There's absolutely nothing wrong with transitioning to clean energy.



But there's absolutely everything wrong with thinking that blocking pipelines will somehow magically move us in that direction.



It's a fallacy people continue to cling onto at home and abroad.



It's something that will continually have to be dispelled with even more vigour by those who wish to see an orderly, controlled and minimally disruptive transition away from our heavy dependence on fossil fuels.



A change in politicians for our friends in the east does not mean change in politics.

http://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/leong-new-mayor-in-montreal-but-same-old-same-old-on-pipelines">http://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnist ... -pipelines">http://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/leong-new-mayor-in-montreal-but-same-old-same-old-on-pipelines

[Anonymous]

The science is settled. Kneecapping the economy of carbon negative nation like Canada will reverse climate change. True Dope and our new GG said so.

A trick politicians use to intimidate us on the subject of human-influenced climate change is to leap from the fact that because scientists say it is real, we must support whatever they propose to address it.



This is absurd. How to address human-influenced climate change involves economic policies that are political decisions, not scientific ones.



And the fact is that much of what our politicians are implementing, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's national carbon pricing plan being a case in point, is nonsense.



We saw an example of this tactic employed recently by Trudeau and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna.



That occurred when they instantly came to the defence of Governor General Julie Payette for her ill-advised comments as the keynote speaker at a recent science convention in Ottawa.



Payette mocked people who reject the theory of human-influenced climate change, along with those who hold other ideas she considers absurd, such as believing in God.



There was nothing "courageous" about this, as her defenders have absurdly argued.



Payette was performing before an audience where she knew that dismissing non-scientific beliefs would be warmly received.



Courage on her part, as a scientist herself, would have been to say something to challenge her audience to reflect upon their own beliefs and values.



or example: "As scientists, we must always remember that the pursuit of scientific knowledge without conscience — as the world witnessed, for example, in the medical experiments of Nazi Germany — can lead to unimaginable evil."



Instead, she played to a sense of smug superiority among those in her audience who, sadly, felt the same way she does.



Nonetheless, Trudeau instantly chimed in, in Payette's defence: "I applaud the firmness which which she stands in support of science and truth."



McKenna tweeted: "Could not be prouder that @GGJuliePayette stands up for the science on climate change."



Both these statements spectacularly miss the point.



Of course, the Governor General can stand in support of science and truth. Of course she can support the science of human-influenced climate change.



But that is not the same as mocking Canadians for their religious beliefs, or for their views about climate change.



So why would Trudeau and McKenna instantly come to the defence of Payette's mean-spirited remarks, which neither of them would dare publicly repeat — at least if they wanted to continue their political careers — in their own speeches?



I submit the reason is obvious. It served their political agenda to use Payette's mocking of those who do not believe in human-influenced climate change, to create the false impression Trudeau and McKenna know what they're doing to address it.



Sadly, there is precious little evidence of that.



Trudeau's carbon pricing plan, such as it is, is a noxious mix of carbon taxes and cap and trade cash grabs which have proven to be ineffective and inefficient wherever they've been tried in the real world, as they will be in Canada.



Crucially, they ignore the importance of revenue neutrality — that every dollar raised through carbon pricing must be returned directly to the public rather than fatten government coffers.



Why? Because without revenue neutrality, all carbon pricing does — particularly at the level required for it to be effective — is to cause a massive recession, which only lowers emissions to the extent it wrecks the economy.



The idea taxpayers must genuflect before such cynical political policies because the science is settled on human-influenced climate change, is absurd.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-whats-really-dumb-trudeaus-carbon-pricing-plan">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnist ... icing-plan">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-whats-really-dumb-trudeaus-carbon-pricing-plan

[Anonymous]

We do resources better than anyone, but we continue to kneecap opportunities for our middle class. I'm losing faith in this country's medium to long term prospects.

But the good news does not trickle down to Canada.



According to the IEA, because of self-imposed "green" policies by the federal government, and by the provincial governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, while "Canada is well placed to export oil to China ... this is dependent on the construction of additional export capacity (i.e. pipelines) to bring inland production to the Pacific coast."



And the IEA estimates the political climate in Canada could well prevent the construction of that capacity.



We have the oil. We can extract it. And the production of our oilsands could create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs across the country in engineering, manufacturing, finance, transportation and service.



But instead, Canada will be stuck on the sidelines due largely to "self-restraint and rules."



Our production could rise to 6.2 million barrels per day from 4.5 million if we stopped being the world's Climate Boy Scout. But the IEA believes that is so unlikely that it has lowered its estimate of the amount of new investment we can expect in our oil and gas sector from $1.7 trillion to just $1.0 trillion.



That's $700 billion of real-world losses for real-world families.



http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-canadas-enviro-theories-fly-in-the-face-of-reality/wcm/34eb10e8-d319-4c72-9152-b6626f74517f">http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnis ... 626f74517f">http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-canadas-enviro-theories-fly-in-the-face-of-reality/wcm/34eb10e8-d319-4c72-9152-b6626f74517f

And this is why my husband's company is considering relocating to North Dakota.

 

[Bricktop]

You think you have it bad?



Australia pays MORE for its domestic electricity than ANY other nation on earth...this, despite possessing vast amounts of natural gas, oil, coal and uranium. You have NO idea how reckless and illogical your government has been compared to ours.



And despite the huge expense of our electricity, we still experience statewide blackouts!!!

[Anonymous]

You think you have it bad?



Australia pays MORE for its domestic electricity than ANY other nation on earth...this, despite possessing vast amounts of natural gas, oil, coal and uranium. You have NO idea how reckless and illogical your government has been compared to ours.



And despite the huge expense of our electricity, we still experience statewide blackouts!!!

Why is that Bricktop?



Expensive subsidies for impractical wind and solar projects?

[Bricktop]

Yes.



And the cost of renewables far exceeds that of non renewables. "Green" energy is heavily subsidised by the silent and obsequious tax payer, who knows little about how much their taxes are used to build large fans and mirrors that generate a tiny proportion of that by any other means.



Because "green" energy is inconsistent and unreliable, we pay much more to energy companies who must maintain a much larger infrastructure to generate power, and reap massive profits.



The privatisation of our electricity generators was one of the worst blunders by governments all over the world. And now we're paying not only for inefficient power, but for their profit, with absolutely NO benefit to the community.

[Anonymous]

In a rush to appear green, our  provincial government is quickly phasing out our coal fired power plants..



We don't have vast hydroelectric alternative options, so we will now have to buy electricity from neighbouring British  Columbia..



The result is that we are no longer self sufficient in electricity, our power bills are soaring and hundreds of unionized  mortgage paying jobs at coal power plants will be gone..



Oh and no change to either the environment or climate change.

[Bricktop]

Exactly the same as here. The "green" disease is contagious.

[Anonymous]

Exactly the same as here. The "green" disease is contagious.

We Albertans feel the pain of South  Australians.

[Anonymous]

We do resources better than anyone, but we continue to kneecap opportunities for our middle class. I'm losing faith in this country's medium to long term prospects.

There are two energy worlds on display this week.



There is the real one; the one full of production estimates and demand projections, investment reports and terms like "tight oil" and "upstream cost declines."



Then there is the unreal one playing out in Bonn, Germany at the United Nations' annual climate conference. It's full of high-blown theories and magical solutions to over-hyped problems, plus calls for higher taxes and greater regulation backed by "green" politicians and bureaucrats.



And guess which energy world Canada is far more active in?



That's right, the eco-fantasy world in which participants believe if they just tax us all enough and spend enough money on alternate-energy subsidies, they can magically transform our economies into equally prosperous ones in which none of us use carbon-based fuels and we all have jobs as smartphone app designers, pour-over coffee artists or bike-repair techs.





After three years of bleak news in the real energy world, some good news actually emerged last week. The independent International Energy Agency (IEA) released its assessment of the state of energy use and production.



Between now and 2040, energy demand around the world will increase by nearly a third – or roughly by the amount of energy currently being consumed by China and India, the world's largest and fourth-largest energy consumers, respectively.



And the good news for the oil and gas sector is that oil and natural gas will both continue to supply large portions of the increasing demand, even if demand for "green" energies and electric vehicles grows substantially.



Also, prices should, at the very least, stabilize.



The IEA estimates the worst-case scenario over the next 20 years will be oil at US$50 to US$70, even if e-cars, wind and solar take off. Under the best-case, oil should climb to between US$80 and US$110.



China, in particular, is likely to see a huge jump in its demand, perhaps 40% above it's current 15.5 million barrels per day.



But the good news does not trickle down to Canada.



According to the IEA, because of self-imposed "green" policies by the federal government, and by the provincial governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, while "Canada is well placed to export oil to China ... this is dependent on the construction of additional export capacity (i.e. pipelines) to bring inland production to the Pacific coast."



And the IEA estimates the political climate in Canada could well prevent the construction of that capacity.



We have the oil. We can extract it. And the production of our oilsands could create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs across the country in engineering, manufacturing, finance, transportation and service.



But instead, Canada will be stuck on the sidelines due largely to "self-restraint and rules."



Our production could rise to 6.2 million barrels per day from 4.5 million if we stopped being the world's Climate Boy Scout. But the IEA believes that is so unlikely that it has lowered its estimate of the amount of new investment we can expect in our oil and gas sector from $1.7 trillion to just $1.0 trillion.



That's $700 billion of real-world losses for real-world families.



Then there is the enviro gong-show in Bonn.



There, international bureaucrats, "green" politicians and eco-activists – nearly 25,000 of them – have gathered in fossil-fuel heated meeting halls and elaborate tents to guzzle trainloads of champagne and down planeloads of shrimp flown in fresh from halfway around the world, all while reassuring one another their hot-air festival is saving the planet.



These annual gab-a-thons never produce anything but reams of paper full of meaningless promises. Maybe that's why the Trudeau, Wynne and Notley governments are so good at them.

http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-canadas-enviro-theories-fly-in-the-face-of-reality/wcm/34eb10e8-d319-4c72-9152-b6626f74517f">http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnis ... 626f74517f">http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-canadas-enviro-theories-fly-in-the-face-of-reality/wcm/34eb10e8-d319-4c72-9152-b6626f74517f

I believe science and common sense will eventually prevail.

[Bricktop]

Then lord help us, as neither has been particularly reliable of late.

[Anonymous]

Then lord help us, as neither has been particularly reliable of late.

Australia and Canada have a lot of resource wealth. The governments of Australia and Canada have written a lot of IOU's. At some point there will be a tax revolt.  To avoid facing the wrath of people they promised transfers to and the people who pay for them they will need more revenue. The least worst option is to develop our resources, pay the IOU's and face the ire of billionaire financed green groups.

[Anonymous]

This Sun Media editorial nails it. We are kneecapping our own economy and all the jobs, education and health care revenue that goes along with it.



We do resource production better than any other country in the world, but we make it impossible for that to  happen. The US which is building the infrastructure to put Saudi Arabia to shame thanks us.

Canada is cutting its own economic throat by stifling its oil and gas sector, according to a new report by the International Energy Agency.



The IEA says Canada is reducing itself to a bit player on global energy markets and walking away from up to $600 billion worth of job-creating international investments in the Canadian economy by 2040.



The three major reasons, according to the IEA's annual World Energy Outlook report are:



Canada's onerous regulatory regime for getting oil and gas projects and pipelines approved, along with the imposition of carbon pricing.

Our resulting inability to get our land-locked oil and gas resources in Western Canada to global markets.

The American boom in oil and gas production using hydraulic fracturing, which is turning the U.S. into the world's top producer of oil and gas, for both domestic use and to sell on global markets, leaving Canada in its wake.

Contrary to the rhetoric of the Trudeau government that the age of fossil fuels is ending, the IEA predicts global energy demand by 2040 will increase by 30%, as large as the combined energy needs of China and India today.



While demand will not grow as quickly as in the past because of a gradual rise in renewable energy, the IEA predicts global oil demand will still increase to 104 million barrels per day by 2040, compared to 94 million in 2016.