Trudeau-2022 and beyond

[Hamloc]

I read a very interesting article in the Globe and mail this morning. It was discussing various provincial outlooks on present and future carbon pricing and other green initiatives and how this will affect the federal Liberal's goal for the level of GHG emissions by 2030. Two things stuck in my mind after reading the article, one was the statement that the level of the carbon tax will rise after 2022, so while we all are pissed off at the 50 dollar a tonne price on carbon, the federal Liberal's are planning for further increases! Secondly, at present it doesn't look like we will meet their goal by 2030 so they are already planning to buy carbon credits at that time from international markets to bridge the gap! Fml, the Gerald Butts stupidity revolution continues!

[tmyrfield]

When you say "they are planning to buy carbon credits" that is exactly what they and the media want you to think. It actually is you the tax payer that will be paying for these credits. the liberal party of canada will not be using their money. The government has no money except what it extorts from its citizens under the guise of taxes. It will be you paying higher prices fro everything and if that isn't enough you will be sending money to china and india to buy carbon credits to help their economy. I'm glad you are so generous. I am not feeling quite so generous this morning with -28C and a good stiff wind.

[blackpowder]

Presently reading a Smithsonian article about the working poor.( <20k a yr.) Some interesting initiatives are available.
Now, I wouldnt want govt to get too involved and screw it up. But up to 1/3 of the people in North America want a home of their own and a job with dignity. YES 1/3!
Carbon hornswoggle is DRIVEN by people without these concerns. Current ruling class far far removed from said concerns.
Should we not decide what we can and should pay for??

Honestly, increasingly we turn our back on "NEW" dollars. And "create" income (?) by churning existing dollars. All while a % is siphoned every turn never to be seen again in local economy. Spend a year digging clams or picking lettuce and tell me what your highest priority is.

[blackpowder]

Now, some want us to believe the green industries are our new horseless carriage. At this early stage I see big differences.

[oneoff]

There's a place for everything including wind and solar energy. But at -33 degrees C and not so much as moonlight showing as I write this; I am convinced that Sask has zero kilowatts being injected into the electrical grid from these sources.

Now there are those who say to just purchase hydro electric power from Manitoba. That may or may not be possible in the future as other utilities find themselves in a bind from literally shutting down their coal fired generating stations. At the very least; the price for that purchased power is determined by the "spot" market which can and does vary by the millisecond; all according to supply and demand.

Now for those awaiting the renovations of a Government House; this is of no consequence and never will be as long as they never are subject to the real world Western Canadian (or many other sites) environment. Actually those decision makers are in their own bubble somewhere else that suits their particular desires at any time on their schedule; certainly not affected by extremes of heat or cold that can't be quickly rectified by someone else's intervention.

Time to run Western Canada for the benefit of those who toil here??? There's so much more that we could be; but how do you fly like an eagle when surrounded with turkeys?.

[bucket]

It's too bad Brad wall had a cold yesterday.....he was putting Trudeau in his place .....trudeau had to keep interjecting ....but he came off as sounding stupid....as usual with an even stupider grin on his dictator face....


Too bad Pallister is just using it to negotiate health care for his province.....he's got the hydro power...what could his emissions be?

[Oliver88]

Trudeau looked like a weasel with his drama teacher voice and smug grin.
Saskatchewan will get the last laugh if this goes to court especially since the federal finance minister is hiding an economic impact report from the provinces.

This whole failed agreement is a farce with weird information coming to the surface.
Canada has suggested that billions of $ would be required to be spent on carbon credits.
Ontario and Quebec will have a special deal and won't have as high of carbon tax rates as Alberta or BC.
Nunavut is already complaining that all their goods are too expensive previously and want a special importing subsidy.
To add comedy to the event, they spent a few million and airlifted in Obama's right hand man Joe Biden to lecture the politicians yesterday. With 35 secret service vehicles idling outside of the House of Commons the almost out of power VP told Trudeau over and over that he was special and Merkel/Trudeau are the two last Liberal world leaders.

Looks like we are stuck with this federal government and Gerald Butts policies until 2019 or 2023 depending on Ontario voters.

Pass the whiskey.

[chuckChuck]

For all the naysayers out there this is what Harper was saying about fossil fuels in 2015. So all you "luddites" who think we will be still burning coal in 2100 maybe have to rethink your views. None of us can accurately predict what technology will be available in 2100. Toyota for example has promised emissions free cars and factories by 2050 using hydrogen fuel cells. If they succeed this promise "aspiration" by Harper may be realized.

Canada commits to G7 plan to end use of fossil fuels

Steven Chase

KRÜN, Germany — The Globe and Mail

Last updated Tuesday, Jun. 09, 2015 1:16AM EDT

Canada has joined other Group of Seven leaders in pledging to stop burning fossil fuels by the end of the century, but Canadian officials are playing down the promise as an “aspirational” target and Stephen Harper says it will only be reached through advances in technology.

In their end-of-meeting statement, G7 leaders called for an end to fossil-fuel use by the global economy by 2100 as well as cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 that lower them as much as 70 per cent from 2010 levels.
Canada, Japan push for slow approach to carbon reduction at G7 (BNN Video)

The G7 statement represents a watered-down goal from what German Chancellor Angela Merkel as host of the‎ summit had sought. Ms. Merkel had been pushing for a commitment to a low-carbon economy, or relatively light use of fossil fuels, by 2050.

A Western diplomat said European countries in the G7 went into the meeting looking for stronger language about moving to a global low-carbon economy, and it was Canada, a net exporter of energy, along with Japan, who wanted to push back the stated timelines for that ambition. In the end, one diplomat noted, the G7’s final communiqué, which calls for decarbonisation of the global economy “over the course of this century,” allows each country to put a different interpretation on whether that would happen nearer to 2050 or 2100. But the notion of decarbonisation, at least, was agreed upon.

Lutz Weischer, the team leader for international climate policy at Germanwatch, a non-government organization that advocates sustainable development, said, ultimately, Canada didn’t want to be seen as “a one-country minority.”

The Prime Minister’s Office denied that Canada had been trying behind the scene to soften language and commitments on fighting climate change. “There was a consensus and Canada supported that outcome,” PMO spokesman Stephen Lecce said.

By having the G7 leaders present a united front on climate, Ms. Merkel did achieve her goal to lay the groundwork for an international agreement on climate, to be discussed in Paris in December.

“Mindful of this goal … we emphasize that deep cuts in global greenhouse-gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century,” the leaders of the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, Japan, Italy and Canada said in a communiqué.

G7 member countries agreed to a goal of limiting the increase in global temperature to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

For Mr. Harper, a politician from petroleum-rich Alberta, the pledge comes as a surprise, since it amounts to slapping to an expiry sticker on one of Canada’s major economic drivers, including the oil sands. But these commitments impose no firm obligations on Mr. Harper’s government in the short term and he said results will be achieved through technology, not economic sacrifice.

“I don’t think we should fool ourselves. Nobody is going to start to shutdown their industries or turn off the lights,” Mr. Harper told reporters after the G7 summit wrapped up in Germany’s Bavarian Alps. “To achieve these kinds of milestones over the decades to come will require serious technological transformation,” he said.

A senior Canadian government official tried to allay the impression that Mr. Harper had written off the oil patch, calling the G7 statement an “aspirational target” and repeating the Prime Minister’s comments that it’s up to technology to save the day.

In the oil sands, scores of companies have abandoned expansion projects in response to the sharp drop in commodity prices.

But others are pushing ahead with plans to substantially boost production for decades to come, confident that new technologies will offset more stringent environmental controls, should they be imposed on the sector.

They include Suncor Energy Inc., which is building a $13.5-billion oil sands mine it says will pump 180,000 barrels a day for 50 years, starting in 2017. Imperial Oil Ltd., a unit of U.S. oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp., plans to more than double output from an existing mine and says it could add some 4.7 billion barrels of new resource to its Alberta reserves by 2030.

“The challenge we all face is how to reduce [greenhouse-gas] emissions while global demand for energy is increasing and we transition to lower carbon energy over the next several decades,” Tim McMillan, president and chief executive of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said in a statement. “While it is impossible to tie technological breakthroughs to a timetable, our industry is focused on technological innovation and have already reduced our GHG emissions per barrel by about 30 per cent since 1990.”

Mr. Harper has long resisted ambitious action on climate change His government, for instance, promised to cut carbon emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. But last fall, the federal government’s commissioner of the environment warned there’s growing evidence “the target will be missed.”

David Mc‎Laughlin, the former head of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a federal environmental agency, said ‎the commitment to phase out fossil fuels is so far off it imposes no burden of responsibility on the Harper government. The Conservatives have not made sufficient investment in technological research to generate the breakthroughs that will be needed to move beyond fossil fuels, he said.

With reports from Jeff Lewis in Calgary and Campbell Clark in Ottawa
Report Typo/Error

Follow Steven Chase on Twitter: @stevenchase

[Hamloc]

These policies of shutting down coal, imposing green energy have already been tried in Ontario. It resulted in 10's of thousands of jobs being exported out of that province and the creation of the largest non sovereign debt in the world. The only thing that Prime Minister Trudeau changed was that he added a carbon tax. It always helps economic growth to add a tax, right!! I can't believe the Liberal's are this stupid and by extension the Canadian people!!

[chuckChuck]

Ontario is only one example of how to manage the transition to renewables. Why not look at Germany, China, Norway, North Dakota, California and see what the range of results are?

In hindsight Ontario's handling of the green energy file was not great. For rural consumers they are being charged alot for delivery of electricity. Otherwise the cost of 2016 electricity in Ontario cities is not that much higher than Saskatchewan for residential rates.

Regina 14.65 cents per kwh
Winnipeg 8.43 cents per kwh
Ottawa 16.15 cents per kwh
Toronto 17.81 cents per kwh

[Hamloc]

Let's look at this another way, if you were the American Vice President and you had the chance to go to another country and speak for or against the imposition of a new tax that if enacted would increase their costs of production and make them less competitive against what your country produces would you encourage it or speak against it? That is a tough one to answer isn't it lol!

[chuckChuck]

In Saskatchewan if Brad Wall thinks carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the solution we may end up paying just as much as Ontario for expensive CCS.

Take the politics out of the discussion about renewables and fossil energy and look at them objectively based on which are the best investments, which ones create the most jobs.

Untill we do that all of this discussion is a waste of time. One measure we have is the the Long term cost of energy. (LOCE) In LCOE renewables are becoming very competitive for additional capacity.

All energy forms will cost something. Some costs like pollution and environmental damage are hidden and not paid for directly but they are still costs.

[Hamloc]

The technology related to CCS will undoubtably improve over time. Look at how the proponents of solar power constantly talk about how it is becoming less expensive(imo because the Chinese started making solar panels) to generate solar power. If CCS can be made cost effective and maybe the new discovery of turning C02 into ethanol will help. The first application of a new technology is always the most expensive and ways to improve it and lessen it's cost come over time. With the thousands of existing coal generating plants in the world and the fact that oil is a finite resource the synergy of CCS and ethanol production would do far more for humanity than putting up solar panels.

[bucket]

Look if my farm helps clean up the emissions in Saskatchewan to reduce my coal powered electric bill ....fine...but I am not sure we in Saskatchewan should be cleaning up eastern Canada's mess.


Otherwise set up a system that pays me for my contribution to a cleaner environment....

[blackpowder]

Most would agree the last century was good to us. The internal combustion engine was a good thing. It lifted more people from poverty. Created more wealth across the classes. Equal access to transportation blurred the classses. Free market demand created and propelled it.
Technology must certainly advance substantially before green energy fills any of the above criteria. Is forcibly lowering a pop segment standard of living the best driver? Increasing wealth transfer years before benefit while alternatives just dont exist yet? I dont believe this will affect the income gap between classes except bulge the lower. As we know, all our leaders are from the upper ones. How does the immediate shutting in of an entire industry aid the invention of the next light bulb?
Remember, the light bulb did more to stop whaling than the price of whale oil.
Govts seem to suck at R&D. They also for the most part, become rather insular over time. Beware the govt that thinks it knows best.
When the newest tax, or forced, sudden elimination of a comparitively benign industry immediately aids the lower classes, then go for it. I'll sit and watch pigs fly.
Green is good, nip the bud too soon and everything turns black.