It is currently April 8th, 2020, 7:51 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3
Author Message
Unread postPosted: December 20th, 2019, 7:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 18070
Image

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 21st, 2019, 10:19 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 14196
For a government that says C02 emissions are a priority, they have put more C02 into the atmosphere than any previous government.

Trudeau full of hot air
PM letting taxpayers pick up the bill for climate conferences

While Canada is a bit player in emitting industrial greenhouse gases — responsible for 1.6% of global output — it’s a world leader in sending bloated delegations to the annual United Nations’ gabfests on climate change in the world’s tourist hot spots.

This year’s conference, which just concluded in Madrid, was widely condemned as an abject failure.

But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did uphold Canada’s sterling reputation for sending absurdly oversized delegations to them.

In Madrid, according to figures compiled by the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation (CTF), Canada’s taxpayer-funded delegation totalled 156 people — second among G20 nations only to Brazil with 158.

Canada’s entourage was more than twice as large as the U.S. (71) and China (76), more than seven times the size of Australia’s (21), and over 50% larger than Germany’s (100).

As CTF federal director Aaron Wudrick noted:

“It’s not clear why Canada needs to send twice as many people to these summits as the

U.S. and seven times as many as Australia. Is this really necessary, or just financially wasteful and environmentally irresponsible overkill?”

The answer is that it’s both, and par for the course for Trudeau.

When the UN’S Paris climate accord was drafted in the City of Lights in December 2015, Trudeau, attending his first annual UN gabfest as PM, boasted that Canada was back on the global stage in fighting climate change.

What he meant was that Canada had sent a huge delegation to Paris — 155 people paid by the federal government — double that if you threw in politicians and bureaucrats paid by provincial and municipal governments.

Trudeau’s 155-member official delegation to Paris in 2015 — he didn’t attend Madrid — was larger than the U.S. under self-proclaimed environmental president Barack Obama.

With a population almost 10 times that of Canada, the U.S. had less than 150 delegates, the U.K. about 100. While we don’t know the bill for Canada’s delegation to Madrid this year, we do know what a similar-sized delegation cost in Paris in 2015, not counting four years of inflation.

The 12-day Paris climate summit cost taxpayers over $1 million.

A partial list of expenses, compiled by ipolitics.ca, included: $234,355 for travel; $349,553 for hotels; $129,423 for meals; $12,595 for hospitality; $11,537 for salaries; $164,529 for operations and $72,000 in payments to stakeholders.

Among the most controversial expenditures was a food tab of over $12,000 for just three Environment Canada bureaucrats and $6,600 to hire a freelance photographer in France to record the comings and goings of thenrookie environment minister Catherine Mckenna.

Given that global and Canadian emissions continue to rise annually despite a quarter century of these annual UN gabfests aimed at reducing them, they clearly have not given us good value for money.

More than that, they are immoral, because they are glorified photo-ops where virtue-signalling global elites gorge themselves on consumption — paid by taxpayers — while demanding austerity from those taxpayers in addressing climate change, but never austerity for themselves.

As environmental journalist George Monbiot has observed of these global elites: “Thinking like ethical people, dressing like ethical people, decorating our homes like ethical people, makes not a damn of difference unless we also behave like ethical people.”

It also exposes their hypocrisy and most of all that they do not believe what they say.

Because people who genuinely believe the world is facing an imminent existential crisis from climate change would never act this way.

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


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 30th, 2019, 7:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 18070
As of January 1st, the Federal Carbon Tax will rise to $30 per tonne, costing Saskatchewan families and businesses more.
Image

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 5th, 2020, 9:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 14196
By Lorrie Goldstein of Sun News Media

Time for some honesty
Conservative climate policy starts with exposing Trudeau sham

No credible body that has assessed Trudeau’s climate plan — built around an ineffective sin tax on the use of fossil fuel energy — believes it will achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions Trudeau absurdly claims it will.

That’s because Trudeau’s policy isn’t designed to succeed, but to make Canadians feel guilty about using fossil fuel energy, without which life would be impossible in a big, cold, northern, sparsely populated, industrialized country like Canada.

Even if it did succeed, it wouldn’t matter because Canada is responsible for only 1.6% of global emissions, as Trudeau himself acknowledged on the Quebec talk show Tout Le Monde En Parle in 2018 when he blurted out the truth that: “Even if Canada stopped everything tomorrow and the other countries didn’t have any solutions, it wouldn’t make a big difference.”

In fact, Canada’s emissions — which are rising — don’t make any difference, and global emissions are rising as well.

Having explained the logical fallacies in Trudeau’s climate change rhetoric, the next Conservative leader could then talk about the issue honestly.

First, reducing Canada’s emissions to the levels now being called for by the United Nations would require a level of economic sacrifice by Canadians equivalent to fighting a world war — one that Trudeau isn’t willing to fight personally given his jet-setting lifestyle.

Purely symbolic

Second, even if we succeeded, it would be a purely symbolic gesture because it would make no significant impact on global emissions, which continue to increase fuelled by major emitters such as China, India and the United States.

These are the real choices facing Canadians and a new Conservative leader should be unafraid to raise them, laying the groundwork for an honest debate about what we should do going forward with climate policy, as opposed to the nonsense that Trudeau is offering now.

The views of Canadians on these issues range from those who believe we should do everything possible to combat human-induced climate change, whatever the cost, to those who believe there is no existential threat from climate change and that it’s a hoax designed by governments to extract more money from the public.

The real question is how much of their standard of living — given Canada’s abundant oil and gas resources — are Canadians willing to sacrifice to symbolically address climate change?

A Conservative leader willing to raise that question, and answer it honestly, would be a worthy prime minister.

In fact, Canada’s emissions — which are rising — don’t make any difference, and global emissions are rising as well.

_________________
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 7th, 2020, 5:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 18070
After deliberately turning itself into a climate-change martyr, Canada needs some basic common sense
For all the economic, social and national unity pain inflicted, our sacrifices will have no perceptible impact on global climate change

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

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

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

the cornerstone of the Conservative environmental platform was recognition that Canadian natural gas exports could help halve poor-country emissions by switching their power plants from coal to natural gas. The industry hoped the government would push recognition of that reality at the recent Madrid climate conference but was, once again, disappointed.

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

More tragic than ludicrous is the systematic destruction of one of the world’s most technically advanced and ethically responsible oil industries. Though hundreds of thousands of trained workers have been rendered jobless and in many cases hopeless as capital investment and corporate headquarters have fled to the U.S., world oil consumption is six million barrels a day higher than it was in 2010, while the International Energy Agency forecasts demand will keep rising for at least two decades. Yet the Trudeau Liberals’ progressive evisceration of our oil industry has handed that growing market to such human rights champions as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria and Algeria. Adding insult to injury, Quebec, consistent with its “distinct society” status, favours its own interests over those of the country at large and continues to import oil from those countries in preference to Alberta’s “dirty oil.” But it happily accepts this year’s equalization grant of $13.1 billion, funded disproportionately by Alberta taxpayers.

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

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 7th, 2020, 6:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 18070

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 15th, 2020, 8:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 18070
Image

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 16th, 2020, 5:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2019, 6:54 pm
Posts: 3705
Herman wrote:
Image

We're getting charged more because of the climate emergency.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 18th, 2020, 5:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 18070
Why is the federal government giving them any money, nevermind $2.7 million of our money to build 54 electric vehicle (EV) fast chargers at Canadian Tire locations across central and western Canada.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... green-cars
Canadian Tire takes Trudeau's corporate welfare for green cars

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 18th, 2020, 5:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 18070
Ever notice how oil and gas activists and climate alarmists are pretty quiet when it’s -40 ?

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 18th, 2020, 6:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 18070
Canada’s “Climate Crisis” is Entirely Political

https://c2cjournal.ca/2020/01/canadas-c ... dgpAvniT4M

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

The Liberals and Canada’s vast climate emergency movement remain preoccupied with national rather than global emissions, and this leads to myriad “local action” absurdities. The award for most ludicrous goes to Victoria’s City Council for its plan to spend $14 million on installing shore power at its harbour so that cruise ships can shut off their generators while moored at city docks. Council clearly doesn’t understand that emissions caused by actually propelling the ships after they leave port are hundreds of times greater than their generators produce.

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

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: January 18th, 2020, 8:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2019, 6:54 pm
Posts: 3705
Herman wrote:
Ever notice how oil and gas activists and climate alarmists are pretty quiet when it’s -40 ?

Yes, I've noticed that.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: February 9th, 2020, 10:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 14196
Trudeau's so called climate plan is shut down Western Canada's resource sector and charge people more for everything. And it still won't meet the pointless targets they set under the useless Paris agreement.

By Lorrie Goldstein of Sun News Media

PM can’t have it both ways
Trudeau must choose between climate pledge and Alberta’s economy

The dilemma for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on climate change and energy policy comes down to this.

If he wants to meet the promises he’s made about reducing Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions, he has to gut our oil and gas sector.

He also has to do it quickly and the consequences for Alberta’s economy, as well as Saskatchewan’s and Canada’s, will be severe.

Trudeau and his cabinet would have to reject the $20.6-billion Teck Frontier oilsands megaproject in Alberta, now up for approval after getting the goahead from federal regulators.

But even if the Liberals cancel that project, that wouldn’t reduce current emissions, just slow the increase of future ones.

To meet his 2030 target of cutting Canada’s current emissions to 30% below 2005 levels, Trudeau will have to eliminate the equivalent of 50 Teck oilsands megaprojects over the next decade, or five Teck megaprojects every year, for 10 years. Even using the Trudeau government’s own projections of what emission levels will be in 2030, including projects it hasn’t started, it would still have to cut current emissions by the equivalent of 19 Teck-like megaprojects over 10 years, or almost two every year, for a decade. To achieve his election promise of cutting Canada’s emissions to net zero by 2050, Trudeau would have to cut Canada’s emissions by the equivalent of 175 Teck-like megaprojects over the next 30 years — almost six Teck-like megaprojects annually, for three decades.

Canada has seven economic sectors that generate significant industrial emissions, but oil and gas has been the fastest-growing since 1990 and the largest since 2012. Today, these emissions total 195 megatonnes annually, an 84% increase since 1990.

The second-largest is the transportation sector at 174 megatonnes of emissions annually, a 43% rise since 1990, but with stable emissions since 2012.

Emissions in the electricity, heavy industry and waste sectors have gone down since 1990, while emissions in the agriculture and building sectors haven’t grown significantly since 2005.

Technology in the oil and gas sector is constantly improving, reducing the carbon intensity of its emissions, meaning the energy required to produce a barrel of oil generates fewer emissions over time, but not enough to come close to meeting Trudeau’s 2030 and 2050 targets. For that, Trudeau will have to slash current oil and gas production.

Trudeau’s dilemma is that while he has never acknowledged the severe economic consequences to the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Canadian economies of fulfilling his climate change promises. He also doesn’t have enough money — our money — to subsidize an industry his climate policies are designed to kill.

Last week we learned the price tag on completing the Trans Mountain pipeline the Trudeau government bought two years ago has increased to $12.6 billion, 70% higher than its original forecast. A report by Reuters news said Trudeau and his cabinet are considering federal aid to Alberta if they decide to reject the Teck megaproject, with the Liberals divided on what to do when they announce their decision later this month.

Vetoing Teck would be widely seen in Alberta as a deliberate, possibly fatal blow to the province’s beleaguered economy by a vindictive Liberal government that no longer has a single seat there or in Saskatchewan.

Approving it would be viewed as a betrayal by those who supported the Liberals in last year’s election because of Trudeau’s promise to meaningfully address climate change.

Now, Trudeau has to pick a lane.

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


Top
   
Unread postPosted: February 25th, 2020, 9:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 14196
Do we still want to be a strong G7 economy or do we want to keep blocking industrial development. Do we want the rule of law or foreign funded anarchy.

By Anthony Furey of Sun News Media

The Paris accord is causing Canada trouble — time to leave it

It’s fairly common to hear politicians or activists announce a campaign to tackle a social plague like poverty or homelessness and even affix a hard target to it. They give themselves a certain number of years to considerably reduce the problem or even entirely eradicate the foe.

While we all agree with the sentiment, we also all know it’s not a goal that we seriously think we’ll achieve. It’s a symbolic gesture meant to inspire action.

“Aspirational” is a good way to put it, and that’s the word Conservative leadership candidate Peter MacKay used in a recent television interview to describe Canada’s Paris climate accord commitments.

There is much hand-wringing right now about whether or not Canada will rigidly meet its commitments to slash emissions by 2030. And it’s that obsession with meeting these targets that is one of the key motivating factors behind so much of the current drama holding back Canada.

The controversial carbon tax; the cancellation of the Teck Frontier project; the recent criminal antics of outlandish activists, most notably Extinction Rebellion; the reason why thousands of otherwise reasonable people turn out to applaud Greta Thunberg’s fire- and- brimstone road show — all of this has been propelled by the fact the federal government has officially signed on to a global accord that says we’ve got to phase-out the oil sands.

All of these matters would have been considered too far from the mainstream to generate the inertia they now undeniably command among the Canadian public were it not for the fact that the government de facto gave them the green light by formally signing on to the Paris climate accord shortly after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election.

Unfortunately, we have not been treating them as “aspirational” targets. Instead, we’ve been acting like they’re laws of the land that must be followed at risk of punishment.

Even though they’re not. Far from it.

What is hardly ever reported in the constant news lamenting our progress is that our 2030 commitments are what is called “Nationally Determined Contributions”. That means we came up with our own goals — to hit, miss or walk away from.

Canada is now at an inflection point where we need to decide whether we are truly worthy of remaining a G7 nation, whether we are serious about having an enviable economy. Given the events of recent weeks, where the economy has been grinding to a halt because of our weak response to illegal activism, it looks like things could go either way.

Maybe regular people will get so frustrated with this series of events that public opinion veers away from over-the-top activism and towards stability, rule of law and common sense; or, maybe we’re about to lose everything and throw our hands up in defeat.

One thing that would go a long way towards re-framing the narrative in the right direction is withdrawing from the Paris accord. It’s clear that our fealty to this meaningless United Nations group hug has caused us more trouble than it’s worth.

This doesn’t mean we stop caring about the environment. It just means we do it because we want to and how we want to, not because of some international shaming ritual of false deadlines and targets. New evidence even tells us that approach may be the most productive.

As my colleague Lorrie Goldstein explained in a recent column, the United States is now the world leader in reducing emissions. This coming after President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris accord — the only signatory to have done so — back in 2017. “U.S. emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period,” reads the latest Internat i o nal Energ y Agency report cited by Goldstein.

Free market solutions to climate concerns are not only possible but likely more efficient. The activists don’t want you to know that. That’s because an open source response to climate change, as opposed to the current authoritarian one, takes away their influence, control and financing.

Did you hear them sing from the rooftops the recent news that University of Ottawa scientists are on the cusp of a new and improved model of carbon capture? Of course not. Because, if successful, such innovations will reduce the need for the Paris accord, carbon taxes and many other top-down green schemes.

While Peter MacKay did not call for a Paris withdrawal in his CTV News interview, he did articulate a sensible pathway forward on the issue: “Canadians can be innovators and be big contributors to the global effort because we’re not the problem. We have an obligation to do our part, but I think we can be bigger in our vision and bolder in our effort to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.”

The Paris accord conversation is dominated by the very same people who are pushing to shut down the Canadian economy and our energy projects. That’s just wrong. Let’s shut them down instead.

The obsession with meeting these Paris targets is one of the key motivating factors behind so much of the current drama holding back Canada

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


Top
   
Unread postPosted: March 5th, 2020, 9:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 14196
No, climate change isn’t lowering our birth rate

By Lorrie Goldstein

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

For example, Canada’s declining birth rate, which federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson suggested Monday may be linked to human- induced climate change.

In remarks to the Vancouver Board of Trade, first cited by Blacklock’s Reporter, Wilkinson said: “Given the lack of significant action over the past couple of decades, it is certainly no wonder that youth around the world are fed up with our generation. We’re not acting on the science we have before us, and many question whether they see a future in which they can have children of their own.”

Wilkinson said his youngest daughter, in Grade 12, constantly tells him, he’s “not doing enough to fight climate change” and “her words motivate me in what I do.”

It’s true many young people today say they don’t want to bring more children into the world given its current state. But young people have been saying that for generations.

For baby boomers, it was because of the threat of nuclear war.

As for Canada’s fertility rate, it’s been declining for 170 years — from 6.56 children per woman in 1851, to 1.5 today.

As Statistics Canada explains : “Canada has changed from a high-fertility society, where women had many children during their lives, to a low-fertility society where women are having fewer children overall and at increasingly older ages.

“Despite some fluctuations, the total fertility rate in Canada has been below the replacement level for over 40 years. In fact, 1971 was the last year the replacement- level fertility of 2.1 children per woman was reached — meaning that couples, on average, had produced enough children to replace themselves.”

“The demographic shift … has resulted in a transition from a country with a relatively young and growing population to one with an aging population, which is increasingly reliant on immigration for population growth.”

One reason is Canada’s shift from a rural, agricultural society to an urban, industrialized one, where families no longer need large numbers of children to work the land and care for them in their old age.

Others are the decreasing influence of religion, lower child mortality rates, improved contraception, the emancipation of women, their pursuit of education, increasing entry into the labour force, and medical advancements giving them the option of having children later in life.

The high cost of housing and the increasing prevalence of contract work vs. full-time jobs, are also reasons for Canada’s low birth rate.

One could argue Wilkinson was simply making an anecdotal observation about young people being disillusioned with the world their parents gave them, which is nothing new.

But the problem is that because the Trudeau government touts human-induced climate change, as Wilkinson twice referred to it, as an “existential” threat, and the most important issue of our age, it distorts its public policies with that in mind.

Human- induced climate change is serious but it’s not an “existential” threat. It doesn’t threaten our existence.

Portraying it as such leads to bad political decisions fuelled by hysteria.

Climate change is one of many challenges we face, including conventional air and water pollution, toxic waste sites and the frequency of deadly viruses emerging from China and Africa, where many people live in close proximity to animals likely to jump the species barrier in transmitting disease.

Hysteria won’t help us address these problems. Only good judgment and common sense will.

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


Top
   
Unread postPosted: March 5th, 2020, 1:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 1st, 2016, 6:51 pm
Posts: 9381
It doesn't seem to be threatening the birth rate across Africa.

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


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Dinky Dazza, Google [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 7 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On ]