It is currently January 19th, 2020, 8:22 pm

All times are UTC-08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: January 3rd, 2020, 5:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 17011
Image

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 3rd, 2020, 7:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13170
Herman wrote:
Image

Wind kills a lot more birds than oil does. Oil causes birds to get hypothermia.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 4th, 2020, 11:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13170
Another example of the Trudeau regime raising our taxes and then wasting the new revenue trying to create an artificial need.

Stations not getting a big jolt

Taxpayers are footing the bill for some electric vehicle recharging stations that service as little as one or two customers a day on average, according to a federal audit, Blacklock’s Reporter reports.

Natural Resources Canada questions when, if ever, the initiative — subsidized under a $226-million climate-change program — will become profitable.

“Some proponents indicated they expect to make a profit while others do not,” the department wrote in a report, The Electric Vehicle & Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Deployment Initiative Joint Audit & Evaluation. “For the ones expecting a profit, most forecast that profitability would start between Years 4 and 7. There was also a lack of understanding by some of the interviewees on the requirements for profit calculation.”

The program was launched in 2016 under the department’s Clean Air Agenda.

In its first phase, it allocated $16.4 million to electric vehicle stations “coast-to-coast.” In 2019, Phase 2 saw another $80 million budgeted through the 2021-22 fiscal year.

Phase 3 would see an additional $130 million budgeted.

Owners of the electric charging stations that receive subsidies must send annual usage reports.

The study shows an “initial snapshot” of usage data collected from six charging stations built in Ontario and Quebec.

All were used at an average of less than four times a day.

Peel, which has two stations, were the most frequently used, averaging 3.7 times a day.

Whereas Notre-damedes-prairies, Que., northeast of Montreal, also has two stations, which are used on average 1.2 times a day.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 5th, 2020, 9:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13170
Liberal eco-zealots harming Canada

Before last fall’s election, while Mckenna was still in charge, Ottawa signalled its intention to give Canada’s liquified natural gas (LNG) industry credit for reducing emissions overseas.

That makes sense. The atmosphere is worldwide. Therefore, a reduction in emissions anywhere in the world is good news. If that reduction is the result of clean Canadian natural gas exports replacing dirty coal in some far-off land, Canada’s energy industry should still get credit.

Mckenna seemed to be onside with this calculation; Wilkinson does not.

This week, Wilkinson said that while LNG exports might be part of Canada’s climate change fight “in the future,” currently, “the focus of our climate plan is on reducing our own domestic emissions.”

For the same reason, Wilkinson said before Christmas that he is “wrestling” with whether to approve the $20-billion Teck Frontier oilsands development north of Fort Mcmurray, which has approval from both federal and provincial regulators and all formal Indigenous governments in the region.

Wilkinson’s stances are both destructive and useless.

Blocking LNG and Frontier will further retard Canada’s and Alberta’s economy. In so doing, it will increase unemployment and bankruptcies and boost Wexit support.

Yet, at the same time, Ottawa’s approach will achieve no overall reduction in worldwide emissions. Other countries will simply provide the energy Canada does not supply – often from much dirtier sources.

However, in cult-like fashion, Wilkinson and the Trudeau Liberals appear prepared to impoverish Canada to prove just how Greta-worthy their policies are.

No other oil-producing country seems willing to do the same, not even “green” Norway which gives itself credit for the way its exports benefit the entire planet.

Yet the Liberals, under Mckenna and now Wilkinson, are such eco-zealots that they intend to show the world how committed Canada is by performing economic self-flagellation.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 5th, 2020, 6:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 17011
There is a growing realization that organizations like Greenpeace and the Green Party may say they’re in favour of the environment and that they stand with Indigenous people, but that’s not always the case. Instead, they have their own agendas, which may run counter to the interest of both the environment and Indigenous people.

https://edmontonjournal.com/business/lo ... ssman-says
'Eco-colonialists' blocking jobs and prosperity on First Nations, businessman says

https://edmontonjournal.com/business/lo ... ate-change
What the alarmists won't admit, Canada already a world leader in combating climate change

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 7th, 2020, 8:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13170
Teck's proposed ultra modern Frontier mine has the support of Aboriginal communities, and it is essential for Alberta. The latter is why the Trudeau regime will likely say no to it.

By Lorne Gunter of Sun News Media

TEST OF FEDS’ RESOLVE
Teck Resources’ proposed mine's fate a true indication of Liberal support for the West

Keep your eyes of Teck Resources’ Frontier oilsands project.

For the last two years, Albertans have rightly been focused on what the federal Liberal government is prepared to do about the Trans Mountain pipeline extension. The answer is: not much.

Oh, yes, the feds bought the pipeline from its former owners, Kinder Morgan, when Kinder seemed prepared to walk away. But it was Liberal inaction that drove the company to abandon the project and taxpayer money that Justin Trudeau and his government used to pay the company.

How hard were either of those?

When it comes to standing up to the British Columbia government and battling First Nations activists in court, the Liberals tuck tail and slink away.

The Liberals may have started construction on Trans Mountain this fall, but only on the Alberta side of the Continental Divide — the easy side.

Effectively, Trans Mountain is currently in limbo because the last time the Trudeau government had to defend it in court — against First Nations claiming they had not been consulted enough — the cabinet instructed federal lawyers to “lay down tools.” That means they told them not to file a single document in defence of TMX; just let the lawyers for Indigenous activists have their way completely.

So it could be months and months before TMX is approved for construction over the mountains in B.C., which is just what the Trudeau government wants.

That is why Albertans (and, indeed, all Canadians) should be focused on the Frontier mine.

Frontier is three times the size of Trans Mountain in terms of cost — $21 billion versus $7 billion. And it would employ as many as five times more workers following construction as TMX.

Over the mine’s lifespan it will benefit the entire country. Yes, the bulk of jobs and tax revenues will stay in Alberta, but as many as 800 long-term jobs could be created in the rest of the country and $12 billion will go into federal coffers.

Frontier will not just benefit Alberta.

Perhaps most importantly, Frontier will give Fort Mcmurray a chance to recover from the 2015 oil downturn and the 2016 wildfire.

In the fiscal year just concluded, Fort Mcmurray had nine times as many foreclosures as it did in 2015. And so far this fiscal year (nine months) there have already been as many foreclosures as there were last year — with three months to go.

As many as a third of mortgaged properties are “under water.” They are worth less the amount owing to the bank.

The Trudeau cabinet has until late February to decide whether to approve Frontier. Their answer will say as much about their commitment to our energy sector as any movement on Trans Mountain.

I would guess the majority of the 37-member federal cabinet — three-quarters of whom are from Quebec or Ontario — would like to say “no,” if they can get away with it politically.


Yet, all 14 of the First Nations and Metis communities near the mine north of Fort Mcmurray have signed economic agreements with Teck. Both federal and provincial regulators have signed off on it (although with conditions). And the company has scheduled mining and reclamation to ensure there is always sufficient grazing land for resident buffalo herds.

Still, new Liberal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson offers only faint hope of approval for Frontier. He says cabinet is “wrestling” with how they could approve Frontier and still get their merit badges as climate zealots.

Albertans don’t have to wait until a federal court rules on Indigenous activists’ objections to Trans Mountain. We’ll be able to tell next month whether the Trudeau government is serious about supporting the West.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 8th, 2020, 12:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 10:00 pm
Posts: 39
Ignorance about ecology and climate change hurts everyone. Buying disinformation put out by oil companies and billionaires is unfrogiveable. You people are total tools.

_________________
Image


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 8th, 2020, 1:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 10:00 pm
Posts: 39
Herman wrote:
Image



Yeah. You know why that pic isn't everywhere?

Because, this:

Billions of birds are killed each year by domestic cats. Yes, that’s billions with a b. Collisions with communications towers kill about 6.5 million birds each year; this is about 18 times more than wind power technology. Electrocutions kill about 5.4 million.

Furthermore, nuclear power plants and fossil-fuel plants kill far more birds than wind power. “Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farm-related avian fatalities equated to approximately 46,000 birds in the United States in 2009, but nuclear power plants killed about 460,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 24 million,” according to a paper published by Benjamin K. Sovacool titled “The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power.”

Cooling conventional power plants also kills billions of fish each year, in addition to birds. “The EPA says it also tracks other species of fish, and its overall figure for year-old-equivalent fish lost in power-plant cooling systems is 3.5 billion per year,” according to an Associated Press article in 2008.

You are an uneducated twat.

_________________
Image


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 8th, 2020, 1:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 8:12 pm
Posts: 21292
The Gist wrote:
Furthermore, fossil-fuel plants kill far more birds than wind power.

Wrong again my dim-witted elderly white friend. Wind turbines contribute a tiny amount to the power grid. Yet, in this province alone they kill about 8200 birds annually, not including threatening our bat population. Canadian oilsands mines on the other hand, have killed 3,000 birds, and even fewer bats in the last six years. As for natural gas power plants, it was flaring that killed some birds. However, since new plants with advanced technology capture and recycle excess gas that is not a serious argument either.

Aside from being bird and bat blenders, wind turbines kill people. In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. By contrast, nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths. In that same year, America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths.

Remember when I schooled you at SG about the uselessness of wind power. Remember how I explained that it's a diffuse source of energy that requires a large land environnmental footprint. Do you recall me explaining that the West's wind hobby is causing mass pollution in Asia. Does me telling you that it's also unsustainable because there isn't enough rare earth metals in the world ring a bell?

It's laughable watching some elderly clown who doesn't know an exchanger from pigging think it understands science. ac_toofunny ac_lmfao

_________________
The Iron Chink!!


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 8th, 2020, 2:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13170
Quote:
Remember how I explained that it's a diffuse source of energy that requires a large land environnmental footprint. Do you recall me explaining that the West's wind hobby is causing mass pollution in Asia. Does me telling you that it's also unsustainable because there isn't enough rare earth metals in the world ring a bell?


It seems even greens are turning against wind power. Herman posted this in another thread,
https://www.thenewtelegraph.ca/latestne ... o5jMbTNbWM
Image

There's a reason why we abandoned wind and replaced it with coal a long time ago to power our lives.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 8th, 2020, 7:09 pm 

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Posts: 989
I think the reason Herman posted the picture of the dead bird under a wind turbine is because in Canada everybody saw the images about 5 or 6 years ago when 300 birds died a tailings pond in Northern Alberta. That was used like porn by anti-oil activist politicians and ENGO's.

Wind is not the answer though.

Quote:
Two Harvard researchers published a paper showing that trying to fuel our energy-intensive society solely with renewables would require cartoonish amounts of land. How cartoonish? Consider: meeting America’s current demand for electricity alone—not including gasoline or jet fuel, or the natural gas required for things like space heating and fertilizer production—would require covering a territory twice the size of California with wind turbines.

The IPCC and climate-change activists love solar and wind energy, and far-left politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have called for a wartime-style national mobilization to convert to 100 percent renewable-energy usage. But this credo ignores a fundamental truth: energy policy and land-use policy are inextricable.

But the new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, shows yet again that wind energy’s Achilles heel is its paltry power density. “We found that the average power density—meaning the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant—was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some leading energy experts,” said lead author Lee Miller, a postdoctoral fellow who coauthored the report with Harvard physics professor David Keith. The problem is that most estimates of wind energy’s potential ignore “wind shadow,” an effect that occurs when turbines are placed too closely together: the upwind turbines rob wind speed from others placed downwind.

Further: “While improved wind turbine design and siting have increased capacity factors (and greatly reduced costs), they have not altered power densities.” In other words, though Big Wind has increased the size and efficiency of turbines—the latest models stand more than 700 feet tall—it hasn’t been able to wring more energy out of the wind. Due to the wind-shadow effect, those taller turbines must be placed farther and farther apart, which means that the giant turbines cover more land. As turbines get taller and sprawl across the landscape, more people see them.

he punchline here is obvious: wind energy has been sold as a great source of “clean” energy. The reality is that wind energy’s expansion has been driven by federal subsidies and state-level mandates. Wind energy, cannot, and will not, meet a significant portion of our future energy needs because it requires too much land.

Miller and Keith’s paper shows that the ongoing push for 100-percent renewables, and, in particular, the idea that wind energy is going to be a major contributor to that goal, is not just wrongheaded—it’s an energy dead end.

https://www.city-journal.org/wind-power ... the-answer

If we really want to wean the world off of cheap coal, look at small or modular nuclear reactors. I don't have a lot of details, but I know they are an affordable option for the developing world where most of this century's air pollutants and man made C02 will come from. Natural gas is another option. One of the most plentiful resources in the world is natural gas and it has perhaps the smallest land footprint of any energy source.

_________________
gay, conservative and proud


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 9th, 2020, 8:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13170
Yale University gives Canada the highest environmental rating among the 10 largest oil-producing nations in the world.

But big big green — who have benefited from hundreds of millions in donations from rich, mostly American funders over the past decade — complain that the Alberta government's CEC is nothing more than an attempt to bully them into silence.

Of course, environmentalists are past masters at intimidation tactics: blockades, propaganda, strategic lawsuits against companies and governments (a tactic they themselves refer to as “lawfare” — war using the legal system).

They just don’t like the same tactics turned on them. And the Alberta NDP agree. They tried the “social licence” gambit for the four years they were in office and got exactly nowhere.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 9th, 2020, 5:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 17011
Deputy PM won't answer why Saudi Arabian oil is exempt from Trudeau's carbon tax.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 9th, 2020, 6:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 17011
Despite what progtards would have us believe, Canada's biggest oil companies are on their side.
Image

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 11th, 2020, 5:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 1st, 2016, 6:51 pm
Posts: 8887
Mark Carney is a POS. Canada is screwed.

Quote:
Mark Carney’s war against the fossil fuel industry is just the beginning
The corporatist left is scheming to control the flow of money and cut off funding to business activities that may be contributing to the climate emergency

https://business.financialpost.com/opin ... M6hiwjbQIo

_________________
“No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration- Donald J. Trump.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 11th, 2020, 7:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 17011
iron horse jockey wrote:
Mark Carney is a POS. Canada is screwed.

Quote:
Mark Carney’s war against the fossil fuel industry is just the beginning
The corporatist left is scheming to control the flow of money and cut off funding to business activities that may be contributing to the climate emergency

https://business.financialpost.com/opin ... M6hiwjbQIo

He is all about money and power for himself. I'm sure he will not cut off his own flow of activities that contribute to the "climate emergency".

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 13th, 2020, 6:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 17011
Image

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 14th, 2020, 5:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2019, 6:54 pm
Posts: 2077
Herman wrote:
Image

This is going to be a long week.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 15th, 2020, 12:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13170
By Robert P. Murphy, Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institure

Consumers — not voters — will ultimately drive climate policy

Last week, the Calgary-based oilsands producer Cenovus Energy announced plans to help fight climate change by reducing per-barrel greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030, and reaching netzero emissions by 2050.

At least one environmental group has criticized the Cenovus announcement as not going far enough, but at this stage in the public debate over what to do about climate change, these types of voluntary initiatives may be the best compromise when the citizenry is so hotly divided on the appropriate response from government.

As reported by CBC, in response to Cenovus Energy’s announcement, Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada complained the company was only promising to keep its total emissions flat through 2030 (because lower emissions-per-barrel would be offset by greater total production).

Stewart illustrated his concerns with an analogy: “I liken it to saying the captain of the ship has spotted the iceberg and has pledged to maintain course and speed.”

The problem here is that many people, including experts, sincerely disagree that human-caused climate change is analogous to a ship heading for an iceberg.

For example, the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics went to William Nordhaus for his work on climate change policy.

Nordhaus’ work suggests that even if all governments implemented an “optimal” carbon tax, cumulative global warming by the year 2100 would be reduced from about 4.1C (the no-policy baseline) down to 3.5C (the “optimal” amount of warming to allow).

Contrast Nordhaus’ optimal 3.5 degrees of warming with the UN’S aspirational goal of 1.5 degrees.

My point here isn’t to hold up William Nordhaus’ work as gospel, but rather to show that this recent Nobel laureate doesn’t come anywhere close to supporting Greenpeace Canada’s iceberg analogy.

This contrast is why a political approach to climate change is so elusive.

Citizens around the world are being asked to suffer higher electricity and gasoline prices to avoid a future nightmare scenario.

Because the pain is evident here and now, when the public starts to hear that these future scenarios might be exaggerated, they then elect political officials who weaken or overturn the political commitments.

This has happened in Australia, the United States and here at home.

In this context, voluntary industry pledges — which may themselves be partially motivated by pressure from large investment funds — represent compromise.

If companies can make modest improvements in emissions without causing undue hardship to investors and customers, then they can do so and advertise these achievements to the public.

Then consumers can decide if they want to pay slightly more for goods and services delivered in a more “socially responsible” fashion.

Company investments in new technology will move us along the learning curve, making it cheaper to achieve even more emission reductions, if desired.

In this framework, environmental activists can focus their attention on getting more of the public to alter their buying patterns, rather than trying to maintain a string of victories at the ballot box and forcing their vision on society for decades into the future.

Convincing one household at a time is a better long-run strategy than a political approach.

Indeed, the truly “sustainable” reduction in emissions will occur with new technologies that emerge from voluntary industry and customer decisions.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 15th, 2020, 7:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 17011
This is the real Alberta NDP.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

All times are UTC-08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Herman, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On ]