Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Found on the net FWIW... " My fellow Canadians, you are buying into a lie regarding our energy industry and the global environment. We are a mere 35 million people, just 0.5% of this planet's 7.3 bill

Canada is a net NEGATIVE carbon producer.  Our Wilderness cleans more carbon from the atmosphere than the population creates.  The government should be paying us if you do the math.

Canada will not meet its targets, not even close.  What I find reprehensible about Liberal values is the showmanship, wing flapping and strident crowing about what is right and what is good when

Posted Images

 very interesting studies / article.  

Climate change: Planting new forests 'can do more harm than good'

By Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent
  • 55 minutes ago
  •  
EthiopiaImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image captionChildren planting trees in Ethiopia, a country which has embraced new forests as part of its climate plan

Rather than benefiting the environment, large-scale tree planting may do the opposite, two new studies have found.

One paper says that financial incentives to plant trees can backfire and reduce biodiversity with little impact on carbon emissions.

A separate project found that the amount of carbon that new forests can absorb may be overestimated.

The key message from both papers is that planting trees is not a simple climate solution.

Over the past few years, the idea of planting trees as a low cost, high impact solution to climate change has really taken hold.

ChileImage copyrightCRISTIAN ECHEVERRÍA Image captionLast remnant of Chile's Nothofagus alessandrii forests surrounded by forest plantations

Previous studies have indicated that trees have enormous potential to soak up and store carbon, and many countries have established tree planting campaigns as a key element of their plans to tackle climate change.

In the UK, promises by the political parties to plant ever larger numbers of trees were a feature of last year's general election.

In the US, even President Donald Trump has rowed in behind the Trillion Trees Campaign.

Legislation to support the idea has been introduced into the US Congress.

Another major tree planting initiative is called the Bonn Challenge.

Countries are being urged to restore 350 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2030.

TrumpImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image captionPresident Trump planting a tree at the White House to mark Earth Day

So far, around 40 nations have endorsed the idea.

But scientists have urged caution against the headlong rush to plant new forests.

They point to the fact that in the Bonn Challenge nearly 80% of the commitments made to date involve planting monoculture plantations or a limited mix of trees that produce specific products such as fruit or rubber.

The authors of this new study have looked closely at the financial incentives given to private landowners to plant trees.

These payments are seen as a key element of increasing the number of trees significantly.

The study looked at the example of Chile, where a decree subsidising tree planting ran from 1974 to 2012, and was widely seen as a globally influential afforestation policy.

The law subsidised 75% of the costs of planting new forests.

ChileImage copyrightROBERT HEILMAYR Image captionRecently planted pine plantation on Chiloe Island, Chile

While it was intended not to apply to existing forests, lax enforcement and budgetary limitations meant that some landowners simply replaced native forests with more profitable new tree plantations.

Their study found the subsidy scheme expanded the area covered by trees, but decreased the area of native forest.

The authors point out that since Chile's native forests are rich in biodiversity and store large amounts of carbon, the subsidy scheme failed to increase the carbon stores and accelerated biodiversity loss.

"If policies to incentivise tree plantations are poorly designed or poorly enforced, there is a high risk of not only wasting public money but also releasing more carbon and losing biodiversity," said co-author Prof Eric Lambin, from Stanford University.

"That's the exact opposite of what these policies are aiming for."

A second study set out to examine how much carbon a newly planted forest would be able to absorb from the atmosphere.

Up until now, many scientists have calculated the amount of carbon that trees can pull down from the air using a fixed ratio.

Suspecting that this ratio would depend on local conditions, the researchers looked at northern China, which has seen intensive tree planting by the government because of climate change but also in an effort to reduce dust from the Gobi desert.

Looking at 11,000 soil samples taken from afforested plots, the scientists found that in carbon poor soils, adding new trees did increase the density of organic carbon.

But where soils were already rich in carbon, adding new trees decreased this density.

The authors say that previous assumptions about how much organic carbon can be fixed by planting new trees is likely an overestimate.

"We hope that people can understand that afforestation practices are not one single thing," said Dr Anping Chen, from Colorado State University and a lead author on the study.

"Afforestation involves many technical details and balances of different parts, and it cannot solve all our climate problems."

Both papers have been published in the journal Nature Sustainability.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it isn't the planting of trees that is the problem.

It is the greed involved by planting only one type of tree to maximize profits out of tree planting that is leading to the degrading of biodiversity which is what is actually needed.

Still better than doing nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UN evaluates reports of record Arctic heat in Siberia

'We've seen satellite images this morning, and it's just one mass of red,' Nullis said

The Associated Press · Posted: Jun 23, 2020 9:55 AM CT | Last Updated: 5 minutes ago
 
russia-siberia-heat.jpg
In this handout photo provided by Olga Burtseva, children play in the Krugloe lake outside Verkhoyansk, the Sakha Republic, about 4660 kilometres northeast of Moscow, Russia, Sunday, June 21, 2020. A Siberian town that endures the world's widest temperature range has recorded a new high amid a heat wave that is contributing to severe forest fires. Russia's meteorological service said the thermometer hit 38 C on Saturday in Verkhoyansk, in the Sakha Republic about 4660 kilometres northeast of Moscow. (Olga Burtseva/Associated Press)

The U.N. weather agency is investigating media reports suggesting a new record high temperature of over 38 Celsius (100.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Arctic Circle amid a heatwave and prolonged wildfires in eastern Siberia.

The World Meteorological Organization said Tuesday that it's looking to verify the temperature reading on Saturday in the Russian town of Verkhoyansk with Rosgidromet, the Russian federal service for hydro-meteorological and environmental monitoring.

 

The reports suggest yet another possible sign of global warming in the Arctic, which the agency said is among the fastest warming regions in the world and is heating at twice the global average.

"Apparently, this particularly region of eastern Siberia has very, very cold extremes in winter, but is also known for its extremes in summer, so temperatures above 30 degrees Celsius in July are not unusual," World Meteorological Organization spokeswoman Clare Nullis said. "But obviously 38 degrees Celsius is exceptional."

"We've seen satellite images this morning, and it's just one mass of red — it's striking and worrying," she told a U.N. briefing in Geneva.

The area has been hit by wildfires that have driven up temperatures.

"A WMO fast-response evaluation team has given tentative acceptance of this observation as a legitimate observation, which is consistent with current upper air observations at the time in Siberia," WMO special rapporteur Randall Cerveny said in a statement.

"This will now be subject to a normal process for a detailed formal review by a panel of WMO atmospheric scientists," added Cerveny, who is also a professor of geographical sciences at Arizona State University.

The World Meteorological Organization has not previously verified possible records for the "highest temperature recorded north of the Arctic Circle," but is considering creating such a category given the "interest in this extreme observation," the agency said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Near historic low': Atlantic salmon returns plunged in 2019

The message is always "global warming did this." 

It's certainly not the strategically placed gill nets at river choke points, it's not runoff from clearcuts on sloping ground above the river, it's not the 205 billion litres of raw sewage pumped into the ocean, it's not damns and diversions, and it has nothing to do with effluent from huge centralized packing plants.

These are all an effort by Trumpers to deflect your attention toward things that are actually fixable. They likely want you to contemplate moving from something we have little control over to things that we can easily fix right now by acknowledging that perfect storms result from the collision of perfect ingredients, each innocuous if considered on its own... cover your ears, don't listen.

Blood water' continues to spew into the ocean off the coast of Vancouver Island

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally... I don't feel so lonely now.

The amount of deflection from what we can control to the boogeyman of what we can't control is self defeating and just plain weak. Time to grow up and get er done IMO. The weak sister excuses of the climate boogeyman crowd ring pretty hollow. Stop crapping in the damn river and then wondering where all the fish went. WTFDYTWGTH:

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-how-climate-change-alarmism-hurts-the-environment-and-us

The larger problem, as reported by The Canadian Press in February, is that municipalities are dumping hundreds of billions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways — almost 900 billion between 2013 and 2018 alone, a 44% increase in five years.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, deicer said:

Technology is going to lead to an even faster change if they can implement this soon. 

Yawn, another breakthrough for EV's 'just around the corner' - as it has been for the past 20 years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leading voice apologizes for the ‘climate scare’

 

  • Calgary Sun
  • 5 Jul 2020
  • LORNE GUNTER lgunter@postmedia.com @sunlornegunter
img?regionKey=Jo3dOSD1XSerVEIkixqxnA%3d%3d  

In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the central character is Winston Smith. At the Ministry of Truth, Smith’s job is to alter archived news stories and photographs eliminating references to and images of “unpersons” — officials who have fallen out of favour with the governing party.

Smith also makes old headlines agree with new realities, such as when an autumn harvest comes in well short of the central party’s optimistic spring predictions and the old stories have to be reworked to make it look as if the party had been right all along.

Kind of like the way the CBC covers Justin Trudeau and the Liberals.

I’m betting Michael Schellenberger is about to become the next unperson at the Global Warming Ministry of Truth.

Schellenberger has been one of the world’s leading environmentalists for the past three decades. However, on Monday he wrote in Forbes, “On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.”

You can turn off the alarm. Mute the hysteria. Pause the Greta.

The world is not going to hell in a manmade-emissions handbasket.

In his Forbes article (since expunged, Orwell-style, from Forbes’ site), Schellenberger confesses, “I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.”

This isn’t just some fringe player. Schellenberger is an expert reviewer of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the bible of climate change alarmism.

He goes further. “Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’.”

“Climate change is not making natural disasters worse.”

“The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’.”

Wildfires have actually declined by 25 per cent over the past two decades. Many large, recent fires were caused by “the build up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change … ” In other words, the huge wildfires in Australia, California and Canada in recent years are more the fault of politicians and environmentalists refusing to allow forests to be selectively logged as they are of exhaust from idling SUVs.

Habitat loss due to human encroachment is a much bigger threat to species than climate change. So is poaching.

“Air pollution and carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for 50 years.”

Climate change is not an “existential threat” to civilization.

Still Schellenberger admits he has said nothing until now (his book, Apocalypse Never, releases this month) because he “was scare d .” He “remained silent about the climate misinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding.”

He suffered “harsh consequences” whenever he dared call out the distortions of his fellow eco-activists.

Schellenberger is not alone. Many scientists I have spoken with have worried about earning tenure in their universities if they break with the alarmism orthodoxy. And peer-reviewed journals often only review peers who agree in advance.

In many ways the reaction to Apocalypse Never will mirror the reaction to Michael Moore’s documentary, Planet of the Humans, which earlier this year debunked the “green” energy industry. Environmentalists worked hard to have Moore’s film “deplatformed” from YouTube and Facebook and anywhere else it was posted.

Similarly, you can expect them to pressure news sites (like Forbes) not to publish Schellenberger online or in print — and to take his apology down wherever it has been published.

In one way, Schellenberger’s book may be even more important than Moore’s film.

Moore doesn’t question the science behind the climate scare, he merely exposes the fallacy that “green” energy is somehow a solution.

Moore doesn’t say the climate alarm is a false alarm; Schellenberger does.

Many scientists I have spoken with have worried about earning tenure in their universities if they break with the alarmism orthodoxy. And peer-reviewed journals often only review peers who agree in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

We will see if trudeau will put his money where his mouth is....get tough with real problems rather than lecturing Canadians about drink boxy thingys and penalizing them with useless carbon taxes:

 

Quote

The Amazon is one of the most critical habitats in the world, producing as much as one-fifth of the world's oxygen and storing carbon dioxide that would otherwise cause massive increases to global warming.

Quote

OTTAWA — The federal government is being urged to halt trade talks with Brazil after another summer of record-breaking fires in the Amazon rainforest.

New data from Brazil's own space agency show the fire devastation in the rainforest even worse this year than in 2019, when 30 per cent more of the forest was destroyed compared to the year before.

Between January and the end of July, an area almost twice the size of Prince Edward Island had burned, and recent reports show the trend continued in August.

France and Germany have both halted further movement to ratify Europe's free trade deal with the Mercosur bloc, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Greenpeace Canada campaign manager Reykia Fick said Canada needs to pull out of trade talks with Mercosur too.

"The government cannot be rewarding the destruction of the Amazon," she said. "It cannot be opening the market to precisely the products that are driving the devastating Amazon fires and ongoing deforestation and destruction that we see, and claim to be responsible about climate change."

A year ago Canada resisted such calls, saying diversifying its trade partners was critical and that any deal would include environmental protections.

Canada began exploring talks with the Mercosur bloc in 2017 and official negotiations began a year later. Six rounds of talks took place between March 2018 and June 2019, but no talks have occurred since then, said Ryan Nearing, press secretary for International Trade Minister Mary Ng.

 

Fick said Greenpeace would spend Saturday, a global day of action to protect rain forests, reaching out to multiple Canadian leaders pushing them to back away from further trade with Brazil.

"What is happening in Brazil is at a crisis level and it will have global impacts in terms of what happens in the Amazon," she said. "The urgency and the scale of what we have, what the potential negative impact would have, of this trade deal are just especially striking."

https://ca.news.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrE1xOai1Nf4k0AWJbrFAx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?p=feds+pushed+to+end+trade+brazil&fr=mcafee&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Aw%2Cm%3Anewsdd_sna_t%2Cct%3Avm

 

"A year ago Canada resisted such calls, saying diversifying its trade partners was critical and that any deal would include environmental protections." 

And that says everything about the green push of the liberal government....where is Canadas back??? they say they will push for human rights around the world, but when it comes to making tough deals and really having to do the heavy lifting, they would rather make grandiose statements and spend borrowed money that you and I will have to pay back! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

The Dirty Secrets Of ‘Clean’ Electric Vehicles

The widespread view that fossil fuels are “dirty” and renewables such as wind and solar energy and electric vehicles are “clean” has become a fixture of mainstream media and policy assumptions across the political spectrum in developed countries, perhaps with the exception of the Trump-led US administration. Indeed the ultimate question we are led to believe is how quickly can enlightened Western governments, led by an alleged scientific consensus, “decarbonize” with clean energy in a race to save the world from impending climate catastrophe. The ‘net zero by 2050’ mantra, calling for carbon emissions to be completely mitigated within three decades, is now the clarion call by governments and intergovernmental agencies around the developed world, ranging from several EU member states and the UK, to the International Energy Agencyand the International Monetary Fund.

Mining out of sight, out of mind

 

Let’s start with Elon Musk’s Tesla. In an astonishing achievement for a company that has now posted four consecutive quarters of profits, Tesla is now the world’s most valuable automotive company. Demand for EVs is set to soar, as government policies subsidize the purchase of EVs to replace the internal combustion engine of gasoline and diesel-driven cars and as owning a “clean” and “green” car becomes a moral testament to many a virtue-signaling customer. 

Yet, if one looks under the hood of “clean energy” battery-driven EVs, the dirt found would surprise most. The most important component in the EV is the lithium-ion rechargeable battery which relies on critical mineral commodities such as cobalt, graphite, lithium, and manganese. Tracing the source of these minerals, in what is called “full-cycle economics”, it becomes apparent that EVs create a trail of dirt from the mining and processing of minerals upstream.

A recent United Nations report warns that the raw materials used in electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries where environmental and labour regulations are weak or non-existent. Thus, battery production for EVs is driving a boom in small-scale or “artisanal” cobalt production in the Democratic Republic of Congo which supplies two thirds of global output of the mineral. These artisanal mines, which account for up to a quarter of the country’s production, have been found to be dangerous and employ child labour. 

Mindful of what the image of children scrabbling for hand-dug minerals in Africa can do to high tech’s clean and green image, most tech and auto companies using cobalt and other toxic heavy metals avoid direct sourcing from mines. Tesla Inc. TSLA -7.4% struck a deal last month with Swiss-based Glencore Plc to buy as much as 6,000 tons of cobalt annually from the latter’s Congolese mines. While Tesla has said it aims to remove reputational risks associated with sourcing minerals from countries such as the DRC where corruption is rampant, Glencore  assures buyers that no hand-dug cobalt is treated at its mechanized mines.

There are 7.2 million battery EVs or about 1% of the total vehicle fleet today. To get an idea of the scale of mining for raw materials involved in replacing the world’s gasoline and diesel-fueled cars with EVs, we can take the example of the UK as provided by Michael Kelly, the Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge. According to Professor Kelly, if we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs,  assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials: about twice the annual global production of cobalt; three quarters of the world’s production lithium carbonate; nearly the entire world production of neodymium; and more than half the world’s production of copper in 2018. 

And this is just for the UK. Professor Kelly estimates that if we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles, the vast increases in the supply of the raw materials listed above would go far beyond known reserves. The environmental and social impact of vastly-expanded mining for these materials — some of which are highly toxic when mined, transported and processed – in countries afflicted by corruption and poor human rights records can only be imagined. The clean and green image of EVs stands in stark contrast to the realities of manufacturing batteries. 

Zero Emissions and All That

Proponents of EVs might counter by saying that despite these evident environmental and social problems associated with mining in many third world countries, the case remains that EVs help reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated with the internal combustion engines run on gasoline and diesel fuels. According to the reigning climate change narrative, it is after all carbon dioxide emissions that are threatening environmental catastrophe on a global scale. For the sake of saving the world, the climate crusaders of the richer nations might be willing to ignore the local pollution and human rights violations involved in mining for minerals and rare earths in Africa, China, Latin America and elsewhere. 

While one might question the inherent inequity in imposing such a trade-off, the supposed advantages of EVs in emitting lower carbon emissions are overstated according to a peer-reviewed life-cycle study comparing conventional and electric vehicles. To begin with, about half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially in the mining and processing of raw materials needed for the battery. This compares unfavorably with the manufacture of a gasoline-powered car which accounts for 17% of the car’s lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When a new EV appears in the show-room, it has already caused 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The equivalent amount for manufacturing a conventional car is 14,000 pounds.

Once on the road, the carbon dioxide emissions of EVs depends on the power-generation fuel used to recharge its battery. If it comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will lead to about 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every mile it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gasoline-powered car. Even without reference to the source of electricity used for battery charging, if an EV is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the EV will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Even if the EV is driven for 90,000 miles and the battery is charged by cleaner natural-gas fueled power stations, it will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than a gasoline-powered car. As the skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg puts it, “This is a far cry from ‘zero emissions’".

As most ordinary people mindful of keeping within modest budgets choose affordable gasoline or diesel-powered cars, experts and policy advisors the world over have felt compelled to tilt the playing field in favor of EVs. EV subsidies are regressive: given their high upfront cost, EVs are only  affordable for high-income households. It is egregious that EV subsides are funded by the average tax-payer so that the rich can buy their EVs at subsidized prices. 


The determination not to know or to look away when the facts assail our beliefs is an enduring frailty of human nature. The tendency towards group think and confirmation bias, and the will to affirm the “scientific consensus” and marginalize sceptics, are rife in considerations by the so-called experts committed to advocating their favorite cause. In the case of EVs, the dirty secrets of “clean energy” should seem apparent to all but, alas, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2020/08/02/the-dirty-secrets-of-clean-electric-vehicles/?fbclid=IwAR1NxJ-UlrorRbbIZsQxd0nGHHc68r5Di0arMdzaJTKiDNWpv-DbmMnxqO4#749a9c40650b

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting POV considering the writer:

Full disclosure: for 18 years I was a Liberal member of Parliament, and a very active one. But the Liberal party I knew was a very different party from the one running the country today. Today’s Liberals are seized with an irrational obsession on the climate file. Climate change trumps any other concern, excluding the pandemic.

 

Quote

Some might say we have a state religion in Canada and it is called climate. But my experience with religion is that it is rational — and this obsession isn’t. What we have is a cult of climate. Cults are powerful and grip the imagination of the people they entrap. But eventually common sense from reasonable voices can prevail and the extremists can be exposed for what they are......

The latest manifestation of the government’s climate obsession is the Clean Fuel Standard (CFS). According to the government’s proposal, the CFS aims to limit the carbon intensity of all regulated fuels over their life cycle, from extraction to production through to end use, in order to achieve a 30-megatonne reduction in national carbon emissions by 2030. To do so, the Liberals will impose emissions constraints on all forms of fossil fuels, from oil, coal and natural gas to diesel and gasoline, forcing producers to either find costly technologies to meet the target or pay credits to comply with the regulations......

Research we have commissioned and just released shows exactly how profound. Our analysis concludes the proposed CFS will lead to as many as 30,000 job losses nationally, putting in the order of $22 billion of capital at risk of exiting the country in order to avoid investment losses. All this to drive an agenda of radical redesign: to get Canada off the use of some of the most affordable, reliable resources performing to some of the highest environmental standards on the planet.....

This year has been an especially tough one for Canadians. Millions are still out of work. Millions more have been left isolated without the support of their communities, schools and families. Canadians are feeling the financial, social and emotional costs of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns imposed by governments. The Trudeau government is making the situation worse with its green agenda and specific initiatives like the so-called Clean Fuel Standard.


https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-the-liberals-are-becoming-a-climate-cult

Link to post
Share on other sites

The current liberal Agenda focuses on the Climate Change agenda because the perceive that it is what is important to Canadians.  If they get on the good side of the majority it means votes which means they stay in power.  It could have been any initiative that was highly publicized and popular.

There are hundreds of things they need to do first and worry about the climate as a peripheral measure.

 

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

The current liberal Agenda focuses on the Climate Change

Maybe they should start by teaching the late Climate Barbie to not eat dogs. Might give her some credibility in the public's eyes.

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

30287A79-0649-427E-8C5C-AAAAC87CBEA0.jpeg

And now evolution ..... 

Ready for a $300 carbon tax?

 

  • Calgary Sun
  • 11 Oct 2020
  •  
img?regionKey=6q77%2baeIBuf5T4jt5Vgp1g%3d%3d  

Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's carbon tax may have to increase to almost $300 per tonne of industrial greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to meet his commitment under the United Nations

Paris climate accord.

That's up from the current level of $30 per tonne, rising to $50 in 2022.

No one knows what Trudeau is planning after that.

The Liberals have said at various times both that the tax will be frozen at $50 after 2022, and that it will be reviewed and possibly increased. It's impossible to know what Canadians will be paying in carbon taxes in 2030 because Trudeau keeps moving the goalposts.

The PBO report by Yves Giroux outlines three possible scenarios for raising carbon taxes up to 2030, from a low of $117 per tonne of emissions to a high of $289.

It depends on how the government splits the costs between consumers and businesses that emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The PBO estimate is based on the government achieving its previous goal of reducing Canada's emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Trudeau is now promising to exceed that target, but hasn't yet said by how much.

It's also based on the government's latest report that it is currently 77 megatonnes (one megatonne, or Mt, represents one million tonnes of emissions) short of achieving its 2030 target of 511 Mt.

But that's assuming everything the government promises to do works, a huge stretch given that Liberal governments going back to Jean Chretien in 1993 have never hit a single emission reduction target they set.

Even if the 77 Mt reduction target is accurate for 2030, that's more than the annual emissions of Canada's agriculture sector. Between 2005 and 2018, the last year for which figures are available, Canada's annual emissions dropped a mere

1 Mt, from 730 to 729.

Canadians have no way of knowing what Trudeau will do, just as they have no idea of whether they are receiving more money in rebates than paying in carbon taxes in the four provinces where it applies.

Other provinces have carbon pricing schemes approved by the federal government.

The issue of whether Trudeau's carbon tax is constitutional, is currently before the Supreme

Court of Canada.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The frauds at the UN are at it again. But why? Because like the leftie frauds, the third world countries want wealth transfer instead of earning it.

UN warns that world risks becoming 'uninhabitable hell' for millions unless leaders take climate action

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/13/world/un-natural-disasters-climate-intl-hnk/index.html

 

Of course, the Enemy of the People, the fake news outlets that are part of the whole Scam of the Century go along with it.

A reminder of what the frauds at the UN said 15 years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

"50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns

· States urged to prepare for victims of climate change
· Natural disasters displace more people than wars

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse."

 

And yet so many people are so foolish as to believe the left wing lies. Why? Some are stupid/lacking intelligence/lacking analytical capability, others prone to irrational fear, some are gullible to scams, and others are parasites that know it is likely not true but willing to go along with it(and even promote it) in order to indirectly get money transferred to them from others via other government policies.

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.