The uselessness of Canada's climate alarmism

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Wealthy prog elitist scum like Naomi Klein will have control over your life and livelihood. She and Avi never had to work a day in their privileged lives. They won't let you earn a decent living.



Are Canadians ready to transition to a lower standard of living?

https://www.resourceworks.com/just-transitions?fbclid=IwAR1Y9PqBg2lWIIpP-VAjagqiZ6n2-len2bVxF_T6PTWwrWHssver9HxacnU



With the federal government now talking about "just transition" as a legislative and policy framework for re-doing the Canadian economy, anyone with a point of view on this topic should make sure they secure an invitation to an upcoming advisory process on net-zero implementation.



Although the term just transition in itself isn't particularly alarming, personally I think it makes more sense to talk about transforming our energy systems. Transition seems to imply that we must jettison the "old" economy. Since doing so also means discarding the basis of Canadian prosperity, that might not be such a good idea. Moreover, since the term just transition itself originated from the Green New Deal movement that regards capitalism as a cancer, it's not too hard to guess at the political considerations present in the minds of those who cook this stuff up.



The fact is that Canada is a small trading economy that relies for its prosperity on access to world markets for its export goods. If we're talking about transitioning away from this – which is exactly what "just transition" campaigners like Naomi Klein have for years been insisting we do – then we also need to frankly acknowledge what this transition will mean for those who must (unlike Klein and her husband after their recent uncompeted appointments to prestigious UBC sinecures) toil in the marketplace to earn a living.



Economist Don Wright recently noted that Canada is trapped in a low-wage, low-productivity model when instead we require policy that fosters high-wage, high-productivity outcomes. States Wright, in his article Rhetoric vs. Results: Shaping Policy to Benefit Canada's Middle Class for the Public Policy Forum, "Governments need to commit fundamentally to raising the standard of living of the broad middle class as a core, permanent objective."



With the phrase "just transition", drawn directly from hard left-wing eco-socialist movements, being installed as the centrepiece of Canadian economic policy, should we be concerned?



In the immortal words of Geena Davis in The Fly: "Be afraid, be very afraid."



Canada's standard of living ultimately depends on its ability to sell goods and services to the rest of the world (or replace goods and services that it purchases from the rest of the world, at competitive prices). From iPhones to orange juice, vaccines to industrial robots, there's just no way we can live as we do without trade. It turns out that half of our economy is drawn from natural resources, according to Wright. This pie chart shows the country's composition of goods and services exports in 2019:

[Anonymous]

https://www.resourceworks.com/just-transitions?fbclid=IwAR1Y9PqBg2lWIIpP-VAjagqiZ6n2-len2bVxF_T6PTWwrWHssver9HxacnU

It's not just that we export a lot of natural resource goods. The impact of the jobs-intensive resource economy is such that natural resources compose 50 per cent of the total base economy in British Columbia, according to a recent economic study.



So influential are natural resource exports, says Wright, that a Statistics Canada study concluded that Canadians were 18 percent richer in 2010 than they would have been in the absence of their natural resource industries.



Since the "just transition" mantra is that all natural resource activities are destructive, irremediable, and must be opposed, where does that leave Canada in economic terms?



With diddly squat, it appears.



Here is what Wright – a most level-headed and temperate of analysts – has to say about this question:



Notwithstanding the undeniable contribution natural resource industries make to a higher standard of living, there is currently considerable discourse about the need to migrate away from this part of Canada's economic base to one based on the new, emerging, green, intangible economy. The underlying model for this transition is explicitly or implicitly a version of the "Silicon Valley Model" — that Canada should invest in creating the technology ecosystems that will allow it to build its own Googles, Amazons and Microsofts.



This raises two important questions, says Wright:



How can this be done in the context of the need to raise the Canadian standard of living?

How does Canada plan to replace those higher-than-average-paying jobs and the significant net government revenue it will forgo if it shrinks the resource sector?

The answer, it seems, is that we don't need to worry about this because the pandemic has taught us that money is free, and Canada no longer has to worry about government deficits and debt levels. As a result, we can, in Wright's words, "just buy (i.e., subsidize) whatever type of economy it wants."



Wright advises us not to fall for this way of thinking. Money is not really free. Eventually, the piper will have to be paid.



Outside of the major concentrations of population in the southwest corner of British Columbia, southern Ontario and Greater Montreal there is relatively little hope for a significant economic base save for what is offered by the natural-resource sector. 



Wright is hardly an advocate of brawn over brains, in fact he places innovation at the centre of what Canada must do to solve the riddle of sustainability and economic success. He credits author Dan Breznitz for these three key insights:



Don't be enchanted with the bright, shiny objects of the day;

Build on what you have, and grow, stretch and evolve from it through a clear-headed and rigorous approach to innovation; and

Pay particular attention to whether the benefits of innovation are going to be broadly shared across the population.

To me, this is a description of transformation rather than transition. Wright says that Canada will be making a major mistake, with profoundly negative consequences for its standard of living, "if it prematurely sunsets what has historically been its major comparative advantage — its natural resource-based industries."



In the Canadian context, "natural resource industries and emerging green industries should be viewed as complements to, rather than substitutes for, each other. Developing new technologies to reduce carbon emissions in resource industries can provide the base upon which emerging green technology solutions can be developed and proven out, and then sold to other industries and other countries."



Wright urges that Canada builds on the natural resource sector "through a no-illusions innovation strategy that will stretch and evolve those industries and use them as a platform to support the growth of its 'intangible economy.'"



Coming full circle back to this use of the term "just transition", you should be able to see why I share Wright's concerns. We need to reject the thinking that it's time to trade away our prosperity for the shiny objects offered by the coalition of eco-socialists, contrarians, anarchists, and pitchmen who have so effectively captured the imagination of the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Most Canadians don't agree with Naomi Klein.

[Anonymous]

How the hell does a journalist wannabe like Naomi Klein deciding bread and butter issues for millions of Canadians.

[Anonymous]

Muskrat Falls epitomizes the boondoggles that are to come with Trudeau's net zero emissions targets.



Canada's first 'net-zero' carbon fiasco

Muskrat Falls will not be the last green financial catastrophe

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's pre-election bailout of Newfoundland and Labrador's Muskrat Follies hydroelectric mega-boondoggle was announced last week with preposterous "build-back-better" claims about creating "a healthier and more prosperous future" that will help achieve a clean and decarbonized energy system for the province and the country.



Commentary on the bailout, announced by Trudeau jointly in an elbow-bump with Premier Andrew Furey, was enthusiastically negative, with most observers rightly denouncing the $5.2 billion in new federal aid as a gross demonstration of the ability of power-seeking politicians to turn past political scams into great achievements. The $13-billion+ Muskrat Falls generating station and associated under-sea and land-based transmission systems has been a mismanaged corporate and political boondoggle from its conception more than a decade ago.



But portraying Muskrat Falls as just another misguided megaproject plagued by unexpected cost-overruns, mismanagement, scheming executives and meddling politicians misses the overarching issue. Muskrat Falls should be seen for what it is: a major demonstration project that reveals the financial follies, to farcical levels, behind the net-zero carbon crusade.



Given these allegedly solid green credentials, one might expect to see big-name ESG-seeking financial houses rushing to fund Muskrat "green bonds" at below market rates to support the project's contribution to decarbonization and the global net-zero 2050 campaign. Not happening. Bloomberg reports that Muskrat's big green debt actually forced Newfoundland and Labrador to pay a 38-basis-point premium when it issued bonds in April.



Another irony is the source of some of the funds Trudeau is directing to the Newfoundland bailout. A big portion will come from the federal government's yearly net revenue from the Hibernia offshore oil project. Instead of curbing carbon emissions, Muskrat depends on more carbon cash to proceed.



And more carbon emissions will be needed to keep the province green and clean. In January, federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson gave three global energy giants — Chevron, Equinor and BHP — a green light to drill for fossil fuels off the coast of Newfoundland. Wilkinson, who championed net-zero federal legislation through to law in June, said the new fossil fuel exploration scheme off the coast of Newfoundland "will provide economic opportunities for many Canadians and the legally-binding conditions imposed throughout the life of the projects will protect the environment for generations to come." No mention was made of net-zero or carbon emissions.



The Big Reset also warns, however, that big green energy projects such as Muskrat carry big red risks. "While the development of the Churchill River is critical to grow the green economy, the end result of the Muskrat Falls project is potentially significant energy poverty for the people in this province."



The risk of green energy poverty is not new. A Portland State University study found that "efforts to shift away from fossil fuels and replace oil and coal with renewable energy sources can help reduce carbon emissions but do so at the expense of increased inequality" and create "energy poverty" by raising energy costs and forcing lower-income households to pay more for energy.



Muskrat isn't the only demonstration project for the risks inherent in trying to reorganize economic activity to meet speculative long-range net-zero objectives. The same fate awaits British Columbia's giant Site C green power disaster, which continues to unravel financially. Costs have soared to $16-billion and continue to rise. The project, promoted as green and clean, is now the most expensive hydro dam in Canadian history.



Many more Canadian dams like Muskrat and Site C would be needed to eliminate fossil fuels in the future. Vancouver energy consultant Aldyen Donnelly calculated that to offset lost fossil fuels, Canada would have to build 2.5 hydro power dams the size of the $16-billion Site C project somewhere in the country "every year for the foreseeable future" leading up to carbon elimination by 2050.



China has taken over the solar panel market. The Wall Street Journal reports that the rise of solar power in the U.S. and elsewhere has been fuelled by a mountain of Chinese carbon-emitting coal burned to produce the panels.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-canadas-first-net-zero-carbon-fiasco

[cc]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/china-doubles-down-coal-despite-global-push-go-green
China Says F.U. - Doubles Down On Coal Despite Global Push To Go Green



Zero Hedge > In spite of growing international pressure, coal continues to boom across much of Asia, with China at the helm. Although China is attempting to move away from coal, rationing electricity use to battle the rising demand of the major polluter, hot temperatures are forcing the government to keep on producing as well as importing to meet this demand.



In the Zhejiang region, only 30 percent of its energy comes from renewable sources, meaning that industrial regions across China such as these will still rely heavily on coal for years to come.

[Anonymous]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/china-doubles-down-coal-despite-global-push-go-green
China Says F.U. - Doubles Down On Coal Despite Global Push To Go Green



Zero Hedge > In spite of growing international pressure, coal continues to boom across much of Asia, with China at the helm. Although China is attempting to move away from coal, rationing electricity use to battle the rising demand of the major polluter, hot temperatures are forcing the government to keep on producing as well as importing to meet this demand.



In the Zhejiang region, only 30 percent of its energy comes from renewable sources, meaning that industrial regions across China such as these will still rely heavily on coal for years to come.

Meanwhile Ottawa is forcing Canadians into poverty with our pointless net zero target that have no impact on climate whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau's "Just Transition" plans for resource development have only one result-increase global emissions, pollution and send high paying jobs overseas. It's the dumbest plan anyone could possibly imagine.



We're getting too far ahead on our climate policies that kill oil and gas jobs

Federal policies that halt fossil fuel development too quickly can have only one result: to make us poorer



Is Canada moving too quickly with climate-change policies to kill oil and gas jobs? After all, while we are pushing up the carbon price to $170 per tonne by 2030, the U.S. doesn't even have a pricing policy yet. And on top of our aggressive carbon pricing, we are also adopting important — and burdensome — new measures such as clean fuel standards, electric-vehicle substitution and building retrofits. The federal government has also declared plastics toxic and introduced aggressive environmental regulations to stop fossil-fuel development.



It's one thing to pick a target; it's another to jump ahead of other countries, especially when you account for only 1.6 per cent of global GHG emissions. The fossil-fuel industry has been a source of immense wealth for decades. It could continue to be an important source of income and taxes even after an energy transformation whose details — and even broad outlines — are still undetermined. The challenge we face is to choose the best course to maximize the value of our resources both in the short and long term as we move to net-zero carbon by 2050. So far, the federal government has flunked that challenge.



Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan rubbing salt in Alberta's wounds. He will ensure that the federal "Just Transition Advisory Body" will put displaced fossil-fuel industry workers at the centre of legislative action "so they won't be left behind." Alberta's Energy Minister, Sonya Savage, slapped that down, reminding everyone that "Federal policies that halt fossil fuel development too quickly can have only one result: to make us poorer. If the federal government wants to find replacement jobs, it had better figure out how to make our other industries more productive — and fast. Otherwise, we will fall farther behind, an outcome that right now it would not be smart to bet against.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/jack-m-mintz-were-getting-too-far-ahead-on-our-climate-policies-that-kill-oil-and-gas-jobs

[Anonymous]

Trudeau's "Just Transition" plans for resource development have only one result-increase global emissions, pollution and send high paying jobs overseas. It's the dumbest plan anyone could possibly imagine.



We're getting too far ahead on our climate policies that kill oil and gas jobs

Federal policies that halt fossil fuel development too quickly can have only one result: to make us poorer



Is Canada moving too quickly with climate-change policies to kill oil and gas jobs? After all, while we are pushing up the carbon price to $170 per tonne by 2030, the U.S. doesn't even have a pricing policy yet. And on top of our aggressive carbon pricing, we are also adopting important — and burdensome — new measures such as clean fuel standards, electric-vehicle substitution and building retrofits. The federal government has also declared plastics toxic and introduced aggressive environmental regulations to stop fossil-fuel development.



It's one thing to pick a target; it's another to jump ahead of other countries, especially when you account for only 1.6 per cent of global GHG emissions. The fossil-fuel industry has been a source of immense wealth for decades. It could continue to be an important source of income and taxes even after an energy transformation whose details — and even broad outlines — are still undetermined. The challenge we face is to choose the best course to maximize the value of our resources both in the short and long term as we move to net-zero carbon by 2050. So far, the federal government has flunked that challenge.



Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan rubbing salt in Alberta's wounds. He will ensure that the federal "Just Transition Advisory Body" will put displaced fossil-fuel industry workers at the centre of legislative action "so they won't be left behind." Alberta's Energy Minister, Sonya Savage, slapped that down, reminding everyone that "Federal policies that halt fossil fuel development too quickly can have only one result: to make us poorer. If the federal government wants to find replacement jobs, it had better figure out how to make our other industries more productive — and fast. Otherwise, we will fall farther behind, an outcome that right now it would not be smart to bet against.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/jack-m-mintz-were-getting-too-far-ahead-on-our-climate-policies-that-kill-oil-and-gas-jobs

Trudeau is an out of touch idiot.

[Anonymous]

Justine himself admitted his carbon scam tax won't stop the climate from changing. Building LNG export facilities might not either, but it will lower emissions. And support good jobs at home.



Why China makes Trudeau's carbon tax irrelevant

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-why-china-makes-trudeaus-carbon-tax-irrelevant

In 2019, China for the first time generated more emissions than the entire developed world combined



Whenever human-induced climate change is discussed during Canada's upcoming federal election, keep in mind the country that matters most on this issue is China and the fossil fuel that matters most in China is coal



The reason is that whatever China does makes whatever Canada does irrelevant in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.



In 2019, China for the first time generated more emissions — 14.09 gigatonnes — than the entire developed world combined — 14.06 gigatonnes — including the 38 member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the 27 members of the European Union.



According to the international research company Rhodium Group, China's emissions in 2019 more than tripled compared to 1990 levels, with a 25% increase over the past decade alone.



China is also building coal-fired power plants at a faster pace than the rest of the world combined.



In March, energy journalist Michael Standaert, writing in YaleEnvironment360, published by the Yale School of the Environment, reported that in 2020, China "brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation, more than three times what was brought online everywhere else.



"A total of 247 gigawatts of coal power is now in planning or development (in China), nearly six times Germany's entire coal-fired capacity. China has also proposed additional new coal plants that, if built, would generate 73.5 gigawatts of power, more than five times the 13.9 gigawatts proposed in the rest of the world combined."



Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has committed Canada to reducing our emissions up to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. (No federal government — Liberal or Conservative — has ever achieved a single target it has set in more than three decades.)



China's focus is on having enough energy to feed its 1.4 billion people today, not global temperatures 80 years from now.



China's reliance on coal makes everything Trudeau is doing in Canada irrelevant — including his national carbon tax/price — a policy the Americans have refused to implement to this day.



That said, many Canadians agree with Trudeau that regardless of what China does, we have to do something, given rising global temperatures.



Fair point. Just remember that what Canada does is irrelevant, other than as a symbolic gesture.

[Thiel]

" The reason is that whatever China does makes whatever Canada does irrelevant in terms of greenhouse gas emissions."



Makes Trudeau's carbon tax and job exporting government bills that have caused a lot of pain nothing more than pointless gestures.

[Anonymous]

" The reason is that whatever China does makes whatever Canada does irrelevant in terms of greenhouse gas emissions."



Makes Trudeau's carbon tax and job exporting government bills that have caused a lot of pain nothing more than pointless gestures.

I saw an article that stated forty nine per cent of Canadians demand action from Ottawa on climate change..



How are cancelling pipelines and carbon consumption taxes on working families in Canada action on climate change?



What Trudeau does to us is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions — according to a new report.



The report on China's new coal plants was written by the Helsinki-based research organization the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the U.S. group Global Energy Monitor (GEM) and released on Aug. 13