Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

I am a firm believer that deforestation is the main driver of climate change.....15 years ago, flying over the Amazon, you could see broad swaths of jungle on fire for clear cutting. It’s also a big problem in Malaysia. These areas are no longer a heat sink they used to be and contribute greatly to warming of continental air masses. So between the clear cutting and witnessing the carbon consumption of world cities like New York, London, Hong Kong, Mumbai, etc., us doing our part to reduce our carbon emissions by .5% of the world really doesn’t amount to a flying f$+k. The world could care less what Canadians do...it’s just a feather in Trudeau’s hat at the UN. It’s a global problem. So when climate barbie starts up about forest fires and heat related catastrophes, it goes beyond our borders. Just like Wynne’s claiming the Green Energy plan led to an improvement in Ontario air quality....more like the collapse of the steel and heavy industry in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it won’t be long before Cb starts blaming west coast earthquakes on climate change. The libs will introduce a tax to stop earthquakes, putting a price on plate tectonics 😳😳...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The screw turns....👌🏻

“ Quebec joins Saskatchewan in carbon tax challenge @

In a shocking turn around, François Legault’s Quebec will intervene on behalf of Saskatchewan to challenge the federal carbon tax in the supreme court alongside Premier Scott Moe.

 

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/quebec-joins-saskatchewan-in-carbon-tax-challenge/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing as good as a good old conservative step backwards. And it seems Dug just can't stop taking kicks at Toronto.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/07/09/news/exclusive-doug-ford-didnt-tell-you-ontario-cancelled-227-clean-energy-projects

This is the first in a series exploring the cancelled green projects in Ontario's now-axed $3-billion cap and trade agreement

On the day Premier Doug Ford pulled Ontario out of an international clean energy trading market, it spelled the end for 227 emissions-reducing projects across the province, reveals a leaked document.

A full list of the cancelled projects assembled by a government source — based on information obtained through their role and through multiple information requests — was shared exclusively with National Observer detailing a breakdown, by municipality, of the $2.9-billion fund the province had collected through the cap and trade agreement, revealing that those most affected by the cancellation were students, low-income Ontarians, municipalities and commuters.

Until now, details of what kind of projects that money was allocated for were scant, but the leaked list reveals a wide range of initiatives set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lost their funding, including schools, hospitals, small businesses and several social housing providers.

According to the leaked document, in Ontario, the money was set to fund 120 commuter cycling programs (each worth $25,000) in 120 jurisdictions across the province. It was set to help develop 41 green social housing programs, and 20 improvement or retrofit projects for social housing apartments. It was also going to go toward 11 electric vehicle charging stations and one electric-bus pilot in the city of Brampton (Canada's ninth largest city).

Some of these projects had already taken off and allocated funding over four years — all of which has now been revoked, on top of 758 renewable energy contracts and other cuts for climate action funds for the 50 Million Tree Program, electric and hydrogen vehicle incentive programs and flood management by conservation authorities.

Standing on the steps of Queen's Park on June 29, 2018, the day he was sworn in as premier, Ford affirmed his government's first policy change would be Ontario’s withdrawal from the cap-and-trade carbon market with Quebec and California. The pledge was greeted with huge applause and cheers. The bill that made the withdrawal official passed in November of that year.

 

Later, Ontario's fiscal watchdog would find the cancellation of cap and trade will cost $3 billion in lost revenue over the next four fiscal years.

Doug Ford

Doug Ford promises to cancel Ontario's cap and trade program in a speech after he is sworn in as premier on June 29, 2018. Photo by Alex Tétreault

The biggest portion of cap and trade money went to the city of Toronto

The cap and trade agreement was set up by the former Liberal government and served as a multi-national pollution pricing system between Ontario, Quebec and California, who collectively agree to tailored limits — or caps — on the greenhouse gas emissions that large industrial polluters in each jurisdiction can emit every year.

Under this system, companies are able to purchase allowances to offset the pollution they expect to emit over a given period. All the revenues generated through the sale of these allowances go directly into government coffers and are then dedicated to green energy projects. And if a company emits less than the expected amount, they can sell their allowances to other companies that emitted more.

According to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO), whose office the Ford government shuttered earlier this year, cap and trade raised almost $2.9 billion in government revenues from six auctions since January 2017 — $2.4 billion up to March 31, 2018, and $472 million in the final May 2018 joint auction with California and Quebec. The money was tracked in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account (GGRA) and used to “fund, directly or indirectly, costs relating to initiatives … that are reasonably likely to reduce, or support the reduction of greenhouse gas.”

As of March 31, 2018, the government had authorized $2.3 billion in spending commitments for GGRA initiatives. Of this amount, almost $1.9 billion was released to cover GGRA-related costs incurred by individual ministries, although actual spending was slightly lower, at $1.85 billion, likely due to delays in project implementation, the ECO found.

According to the list obtained by National Observer, the 227 cancelled projects amounted to about $1.88 billion allocated to projects in municipalities.

A second source familiar with the file said the sum didn’t account for more than $240 million allocated outside the 227 projects for industries, small and medium businesses and Ontario’s food and beverage program. This money was allocated through the Green Ontario fund (financed through cap and trade money), which provided grants to incentivize industries to reduce carbon pollution.

Of the $1.88 billion shown in the leaked document, $1.39 billion (74 per cent) went to the public sector, over $226 million (12 per cent) went to the private sector, more than $20 million (1 per cent) went to non-profits, and $245 million (13 per cent) went to individuals.

Ontario cap and trade A breakdown of cap and trade funds by sector. Graphic by Fatima Syed

Most of this money was distributed to jurisdictions in the Greater Toronto Area and central Ontario. According to the ECO, these two regions account for 70 per cent of Ontario’s population (per 2017 numbers) and are experiencing rapid population growth.

The biggest portion of money went to the city of Toronto, which received $500 million for programs such as:

  • A green fleet acceleration project to help convert almost 10,000 on-road and off-road emergency vehicles (including paramedics, fire and police) to low-carbon vehicles
  • A renewable thermal energy system at the Etobicoke Civic Centre (in Doug Ford's riding) to make it Toronto’s first net-zero community
  • The city’s first net-zero facility — an early learning and childcare centre — in the Mount Dennis neighbourhood
  • A building-wide energy retrofit of Toronto Paramedic Services headquarters to create energy savings
  • The Toronto Transit Commission's replacement of 30 clean diesel buses with 30 battery-powered electric buses
  • A geothermal system for St. Lawrence market — a major public food market building in downtown Toronto
capandtradecities2.jpg?itok=bNSUan1i A breakdown of cap and trade funds by city. Graphic by Fatima Syed

Several Ontario jurisdictions received between $20 million and $40 million from the fund, including Hastings, Niagara, Durham, Waterloo, Wellington, York, Peterborough, Thunder Bay and Halton.

Over 17 per cent (over $323 million) of the cap and trade fund went to transit providers to facilitate a shift toward clean energy vehicles, according to the list. Some 15 per cent ($282 million) went to social housing providers, and 13 per cent ($245 million) was given to private clean energy enterprises.

Approximately 10 per cent was given school boards for various retrofit programs and green initiatives.

Some of these initiatives were more innovative than others, such as the Haliburton Village Community Bioheat System — the county's first wood-fuelled district heat system for its downtown area. The systems involve a central energy centre, where wood chips would be burned in specialized equipment, heating water in a boiler, that is then distributed throughout a series of underground pipes, providing heat and water heating to buildings. While the technology is only emerging in Canada, it is widespread in Europe, particularly in the Scandinavian countries.

Ontario cap and trade

A breakdown of cap and trade funds by recipient. Graphic by Fatima Syed

In total, 54 Ontario jurisdictions received funding for 61 social housing provisions, specifically, until 2022. (41 of these social housing projects were funded through GreenON.)

Once again, the city of Toronto lost the most money in this regard, seeing $180 million pulled for the next three years out of its green social housing improvement program. The city of York (just north of Toronto) lost $13.3 million for social housing and the city of London lost more than $8 million over the next three years.

Only Brampton and three central Ontario cities lost their 2018-19 funding when cap and trade was cancelled in November 2018. By the time it was axed, Brampton had received more than $14.9 million, while the cities of Peterborough and Stratford had received more than $736,000 each, and the county of Brant had been given $825,000.

'Cap and trade' mentioned four times in Ford's first budget

In California, cap and trade funds have been collected from polluters and spent to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, the state spent US$1.4 billion on such efforts, investing in everything from electric cars, solar panels and clean energy transit lines. These programs have helped clean the air of pollution that makes people sick — reducing particulate emissions by 474 tons in 2018. The fund is also being used to reduce the amount of water that Californians use and to plant millions of trees.

Quebec also elected a right-leaning government in 2018, but it chose to continue the province’s participation in cap and trade, committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In Ontario, the cancellation of cap and trade is shown as lost revenue in the Ford government's first budget. It is mentioned only four times in the 382-page financial document, with few details about where the cap and trade funds the government had in its coffers had been spent. (In previous interviews, Ministry of Environment spokespeople have said the remaining money in the cap and trade coffer will allocated for "wind-down costs.")

Ontario cap and trade A screengrab from the 2019 Ontario budget, delivered on April 11, 2019.

The bill to cancel cap and trade was introduced by then-environment minister Rod Phillips in July 2018 but the final vote was delayed when Greenpeace launched legal action against the government, alleging the province failed in its duty to hold public consultations on the issue, as demanded by the Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights.

"It was a great day for Ontarians," Phillips said as he celebrated the passage of his first bill as cabinet minister in November 2018. He said the move would save each Ontarian $264 a year, money they would have had to pay under the former cap and trade system. Ontario’s fiscal watchdog, however, recently said the cancellation of cap and trade will worsen the province's deficit by $3 billion.

“It was costly, it was ineffective, it was killing jobs," Phillips, the now finance minister said of the program at the time. "It’s gone, today.”

But his comments were inaccurate. Ontario's environmental commissioner — along with a Nobel prize-winning economist and much scientific research — touts the cap and trade program as the most cost-effective and efficient way to reduce the heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. British Columbia, California and several European nations who have carbon pricing programs have reduced their emissions while maintaining strong economies.

 

Do you have more information about the projects funded by Ontario's cap and trade program? Get in touch: fatima@nationalobserver.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, deicer said:

This is the first in a series exploring the cancelled green projects in Ontario's now-axed $3-billion cap and trade agreemen

Fantastic news! Get the government out of such initiatives and  let private enterprise take over. Just about Anything government run usually costs twice the price and half as efficient.

Go Ford Go. MOGA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, Airband said:

'Canada's National Observer's seed funding came from two Kickstarter campaigns: 'Reports from the Energy Battlegrounds,' and 'Reports from the Race Against Climate Change' and equity from Canadian social impact investors and convertible loans.'

In the same vein...

https://north99.org/2018/02/15/7-disturbing-facts-fraser-institute/

The Fraser Institute has taken over one million dollars (at least) from the Koch Brothers. The billionaire Koch brothers are known to Canadians as the Republican donors who bankrolled the Tea Party and other far-right American groups. But they also have their tentacles in Canada, and the Fraser Institute is one of their servants, receiving at least one million dollars of Koch money. In 2012 the Vancouver Observer reported that “according to U.S. tax documents, The Fraser Institute received $150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation in 2008, $175,500 in 2009, and another $150,000 in 2010. The grants were purportedly for “research support” and “educational programs”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

 

In the same vein...

https://north99.org/2018/02/15/7-disturbing-facts-fraser-institute/

The Fraser Institute has taken over one million dollars (at least) from the Koch Brothers. The billionaire Koch brothers are known to Canadians as the Republican donors who bankrolled the Tea Party and other far-right American groups. But they also have their tentacles in Canada, and the Fraser Institute is one of their servants, receiving at least one million dollars of Koch money. In 2012 the Vancouver Observer reported that “according to U.S. tax documents, The Fraser Institute received $150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation in 2008, $175,500 in 2009, and another $150,000 in 2010. The grants were purportedly for “research support” and “educational programs”.

The bold line says 1million yet the numbers only add up to less than 1/2 million.  Are we seeing inflated math?😀

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/north99/

Interesting article on North99

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-two-ex-political-staffers-behind-the-ontario-elections-most-digital-savvy-outside-groups/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are left biased, much like others post articles from sites that are right biased.  What is more important is that their factual reporting rating is rated high, and they have corrected their reporting when fact checked.

As for the Fraser institutes funding, and pay attention to the second last line.....

4. The Fraser Institute takes millions of dollars in dark money from foreign organizations. Beyond the Koch Brothers, the Fraser Institute has a large network of rightwing American funders. Over the years, they have accepted millions of dollars from these sources. While the Institute no longer reveals their large donors, external documents show that they have taken more than $2.6 million from rightwing groups and corporations.

5. The Fraser Institute has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from Big Oil. One of the Fraser Institute’s benefactors has been oil giant ExxonMobil. Exxon has given the Fraser Institute at least $120,000. Apparently it’s money well-spent. The Institute is one of the leading Canadian voices of climate change denial. They have published multiple documents denying climate change, including one which put their position clearly: “There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.”

6. The Fraser Institute supports huge tax cuts for the 1% and corporations, but opposes a higher minimum wage for workers. One of the Fraser Institute’s biggest issues is the minimum wage. They hate it. But at the same time, they support measures that would greatly increase income for the very rich. For example, the Institute supports reducing or abolishing the corporate tax (taxes corporations pay) and the capital gains tax (taxes that people pay when they get capital income, like when CEOs cash in stock options). Both of these changes would massively benefit the rich. But when it comes to working people, the Fraser Institute opposes policies to increase wages by even a few bucks.

7. The Fraser Institute attempts to indoctrinate elementary and high school students. Every year the Fraser Institute runs an essay contest which directs primary and secondary school students to submit an essay on a policy topic. Some school boards even promote the contest in classrooms. The Institute strongly suggests that winning submissions conform to rightwing ideology. For example, this year’s contest asked students to explain why the minimum wage was a “misguided” idea and suggested students consult a video called “Minimum wage hikes in Canada: Bad idea” to understand the issue.

In spite of all this, the mainstream media still treats the Fraser Institute as an objective, independent source.

And they have maintained their charitable tax status, which means the huge donations the Institute accepts from rightwing billionaires are tax deductible.

The Fraser Institute is not a charity. It’s not an independent think tank. It’s a rightwing propaganda outfit propped up by billionaires and corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Marshall said:

The bold line says 1million yet the numbers only add up to less than 1/2 million.  Are we seeing inflated math?😀

Fake news, now fake Math?????  😲

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Get the government out of such initiatives and  let private enterprise take over

Green projects cannot exist without subsidies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fido said:

Green projects cannot exist without subsidies.

So what does that say about the validity of the idea on the first place? If something can’t exist on its own it’s usually just Political charged social engineering on steroids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2019 at 7:47 PM, deicer said:

Being part of the global initiative is what will protect us from worse weather.  Strangely, it is only one country that still holds out from the global accord.

 

The amount of differing statistics on this subject is staggering and I suspect that it’s done deliberately and in support of various agendas. As a political agnostic though, I find it difficult to even make a rational assessment of our progress or to discern where it’s all going.

It’s not my area of expertise for sure and when I look at the deliberate manipulation of facts in those areas that I do have a degree of expertise it makes me cynical about the information tossed about in sound bites. Getting real information is a bit of a challenge (at least for my level of search skills). The good news though is that my inability to make sense of it all likely doesn’t matter much since the Democrats have determined that the world ends in 10 years anyway.

It seems to me that we have a carbon deficit of some 66-79 megatons depending on who you believe. As of 2017, our agriculture sector produced 60 megatons, energy exploration and development was 56 megatons, and industrial processes accounted for 54 megatons. When considered in perspective, magic lightbulbs and $20.00 per ton carbon taxes are so inadequate that further discussion of them is not even rational IMO. If you want to hit accord targets the nation needs to commit to significant pain and most people who join my gym in January are gone by the middle of Feb.... it will be a tough sell I bet. It all sounds good until a bit of pain sets in.

I have repeatedly suggested that simple doesn’t translate to easy and I would invite anyone who doesn’t believe that to take an introductory lesson in traditional archery because nothing could be more simple and less easy. In that context, my question is pretty simple (the answer sure isn't though) and it consists of two parts:

1. Given that Canada only produces 1.6% of the world’s carbon and that our landmass scrubs all of it, do you really want to proceed with the accord domestically when other offshore options to make a meaningful contribution exist; and

2. If you do, what sector, sectors or percentage of sectors do you want to shut down to meet the targets?

Nothing in my experience leads me to conclude that the people who want action on climate change are any different from those who invade the gym on Jan 01 (committed to lose weight) and go AWOL by Feb 15.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So screw the world, we're alright Jack....

We had a system in Ontario that was working.  But the voters wanted a leader that promised a system that was more expensive and less effective.

That's all one has to say about the global situation at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, deicer said:

So screw the world, we're alright Jack....

What does that even mean? If you want a solution the numbers need to add up.

The accord deficit is currently higher than the output of the agricultural sector. This is a basic math issue and no one seems willing to say how it is to be done. The deficit is massive and requires the elimination of between 66-79 megatons of carbon. Where do those cuts come from and on what planet is that an unreasonable question? And why is an offshore effort not worthwhile.... being a national partner on an incinerator project intended to burn the plastic recovered from just one of those ten rivers makes a lot more sense to me that banning plastic straws in Dogpound Alberta  (yes it's a real place). I can't even remember the last time I used one of those....maybe when I was 6.

  

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, deicer said:

So screw the world, we're alright Jack....

We had a system in Ontario that was working.  But the voters wanted a leader that promised a system that was more expensive and less effective.

That's all one has to say about the global situation at this point.

Disagree completely. Ontario alone is a net carbon sink absorbing many more times the carbon it produces. And even though Ford cancelled the reforestation initiatives (tree planting), private companies have taken up the slack to continue the practice. This is something my niece has been doing, now in her sixth season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

 

8498DF87-D9F5-423F-B453-C78B610E0DAC.jpeg

When you take into consideration Dug Fraud's spending and personnel issues, he makes Wynne look like a spendthrift!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

Dug Fraud's spending

I'm gone for a while again but what happened to "attack the argument and not the person" and "avoid partisan mudslinging?" In addition, if you can't tell me where the 66-79 (let's just call it 70) megatons of carbon is coming from (to make up the deficit) then you can't expect me to go along with your commitment to the Paris Accord because I see your failure to articulate it as a commitment deficit.

You have to be willing to take a bit of pain here, it's what separates those who go to the gym everyday from the New Years resolution folks who don't last a month. I'm not trying to be mean here either, I've seen this every year since I was a teenager and most people don't have a "pit bull" (get er done) mentality.  If the majority want it and the majority are committed, I'm willing to go along with the accord and do my part. But, I can't think of a single example of liberal minded folk staying the political course when the road gets rocky.  

Crossing the desert is simple, you walk until there's no more sand... it's just not easy. 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

what happened to "attack the argument and not the person" and "avoid partisan mudslinging?"

That is only Leftie talk and does not apply to their personal posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, his spending.

He was voted in under the fraudulent guise of cutting the waste.  Those who don't know better lapped it up.

The fact now is that their budget is $5 billion more than the last Liberal one, and the climate change program they are instituting is going to be a greater cost to taxpayers and way less effective at controlling pollution than the cap and trade system on top of all the other spending. Couple that with the whammy of the tax cuts for the rich, we in Ontario have more spending and less income.  Is that better government?

I have posted the articles from the National Post et al backing it up so go looking if you want the sources.

Yes, you have to put up with the pain.  Nothing is easy.  Much like being in aviation approaching 4 decades.  Change is constant, just not always for the better.  You just have to keep putting one foot in front of the other in search of improvements.

The only problem in this case is that we currently aren't being progressive, and only conserving for the rich.

So when it comes to the environment, we are wasting even more money and resources in a court fight that will not go in their favour.  More taxpayer money that could have gone towards improving fuel efficiency, and cleaning up the environment, instead of putting stickers on gas pumps.

I am willing to cross the dessert, following a good leader.  

Dug Fraud isn't a good leader.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hysteric Fear Mongering continues!

“ Frequency of severe air turbulence could triple due to climate change”

The type of severe air turbulence that sent dozens of Air Canada passengers to hospital Thursday could become a lot more common in the future due to climate change.

 

Finding suitable flight paths to avoid turbulence is also becoming increasingly challenging for airlines as warming temperatures create larger storms and as the jet stream shifts northward, making instances of turbulence stronger and more frequent, says a U.K.-based scientist.

“The best scientific evidence is that there is a strong link between climate change and clear air turbulence,” said Paul Williams, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Reading in the U.K.

“When someone says global warming, we think about the fact that it’s getting warmer,” he said. “And that’s true, it is, but the climate is changing in the upper atmosphere as well.”

According to research conducted by Williams, the type of “severe clear air turbulence” experienced by passengers aboard Air Canada flight AC33 Thursday – which resulted in an emergency landing at Honolulu’s international airport and sent 37 people to hospital – could double or even triple as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5489393/frequency-of-severe-air-turbulence-could-triple-due-to-climate-change/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this