Jump to content

Climate Change?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I loved the remark I saw today:

quote:  The government is going to mandate that we all drive electric vehicles, but, our electrical grid recently could not handle an increase do to air conditioning during our hot spell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fido said:

I loved the remark I saw today:

quote:  The government is going to mandate that we all drive electric vehicles, but, our electrical grid recently could not handle an increase do to air conditioning during our hot spell.

Yup, just wait for the crisis.  The grid is unable to supply - "temporary" restrictions on charging your car and/or metering/consumption limits.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, seeker said:

Yup, just wait for the crisis.  The grid is unable to supply - "temporary" restrictions on charging your car and/or metering/consumption limits.  

No problem, if the Libs are in power they will simply enact Mandatory Mileage Limits (no non digressionary  travel allowed) to solve any problem.  Usage will be granted based on an average mileage allowance per household. Vehicle ownership will be limited to one per household. Discounted public transit will be granted. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

Discounted public transit will be granted. ?

You're not nearly pessimistic enough - your $100 transit allowance will be accompanied by a $200 increase in your taxes!  This will permit an extra discount for selected subsets of the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2021 at 1:00 PM, Kargokings said:

Opinion: Reducing beef consumption might not be environmental solution some think

Anne Wasko  4 hrs ago

Like37 Comments|30

 

© Provided by Leader Post In Canada, 35 million acres of native temperate grasslands are cared for by beef farmers and ranchers. (RICHARD MARJAN/STARPHOENIX)

Video player from: YouTube (Privacy Policy, Terms)

You have heard it on the news, seen it in the headlines and clicked it on social media: We should reduce meat consumption to decrease our individual carbon footprint and protect the environment.

Recently, restaurants and food websites have removed beef from their menus and recipes in claims of doing their part to become more climate-conscious.

Could it be possible that in some parts of the world, raising beef cattle actually preserves endangered ecosystems, provides valuable wildlife habitat and promotes carbon sequestration? In Canada, these are the environmental benefits from the land cared for by beef farmers and ranchers and their livestock.

With less than two per cent of Canadians directly involved in agriculture, it is not surprising that these immense benefits are not well known by the average consumer.

Recently it has been suggested that reducing beef consumption by 25 per cent would result in a 10 per cent reduction of livestock-related emissions. A narrow definition of sustainability, based on greenhouse gases alone, could lead us to believe that a reduction in emissions is good at any cost. But greenhouse gases are just one sustainability metric: only one way of looking at the carbon footprint of our diet.

A full Life Cycle Assessment encompassing environmental, social and economic perspectives for the Canadian beef industry was completed by the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (CRSB) in 2016. It calculated that the beef industry contributes 2.4 per cent of our total national emissions.

So, if we were to reduce our beef consumption by 25 per cent and thereby livestock related emissions by 10 per cent, the resulting total national emissions reduction would be only around 0.2 per cent. Not negligible, but certainly not the silver bullet that has been suggested — especially if we consider the unintended consequences that would follow from reducing the Canadian beef herd.

In Canada, 35 million acres of native temperate grasslands are cared for by beef farmers and ranchers. This ecosystem is one of the most endangered in the world, with less than 26 per cent remaining. To survive and thrive, grasslands need (yes, need) a large grazing herbivore, as they were shaped by the massive herds of bison that historically roamed the prairies. Suggestions to reduce beef consumption by 25 per cent could potentially mean nearly 9 million acres of native temperate grassland being converted to other uses.

Lands where beef cattle are raised also provide the majority of wildlife habitat on all food-producing lands in Canada — close to 70 per cent. When grasslands are lost, species that depend on them for survival suffer. Reducing the beef herd by 25 per cent would lead to around 18 per cent less wildlife habitat on food-producing land across this country, affecting some of the most at-risk species including the swift fox, burrowing owl and greater sage grouse.

Finally, back to carbon — the central point in the climate change conversation. Grasslands with beef cattle currently store 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon in the soil. Cultivating or developing these lands could lead to upwards of 50 per cent of that stored carbon being released.

In the scenario of losing 25 per cent of these lands, the result would be 190 million tonnes of carbon emitted — more than one-third of Canada’s total annual emissions.

A recent study led by Nature United suggests that “avoiding grassland conversion and the resulting preservation of soil carbon stocks represented the single largest opportunity in Canada” for natural climate solutions. In other words, a decrease in the national cattle herd would release much more soil carbon into the atmosphere than we would ever save from the reduced cattle emissions.

A food system’s sustainability is more complex than a single metric can convey. Looking at greenhouse gases alone overlooks the ecosystem services provided by having cattle on the land — not any land, this land. Canada’s grasslands and vast pastures, which benefit from a keystone grazer, make beef an environmentally sound, sustainable source of protein.

Undoubtedly, there are large regional differences and impacts associated with raising cattle in certain less well-suited parts of the world. For Canada, preserving grasslands and wildlife habitat should be our priority. When we look at the whole complex story, reducing beef consumption could cause more harm than good.

Anne Wasko is Chair of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (CRSB), a market analyst and raises CRSB-certified beef in Saskatchewan.

image.png

Linking beef production to climate change is the work of the I'm a vegan so you should be a vegan to crowd i choose to ignore it

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210618005573/en/State’s-Grid-Operator-Asks-Electric-Customers-Across-California-to-Conserve-Power-Today-as-Heat-Wave-Increases-Energy-Demand-Across-the-West

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has issued the Flex Alert for today from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. The grid operator forecasts an increase in electricity demand, primarily from air conditioning use, due to the heat wave.

This statewide Flex Alert asks everyone to work together and conserve to protect California’s grid. The National Weather Service has issued excessive heat warnings for many regions within PG&E’s service area.

Here are ways for customers to reduce energy use during the day: 

  • Pre-cool your home or workspace by lowering your thermostat. Turn it off if you will be away from home.
  • Use a fan instead of air conditioning when possible.
  • Use major appliances, like your dishwasher or washer and dryer, early in the morning.
  • Charge your electronic devices before the late afternoon.
  • Set your pool pump to run overnight instead of during the day.
  • Keep your refrigerator full (with bottles of water if nothing else) and unplug your second refrigerator if you have one.

And, during the critical hours of 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., customers are asked to: 

  • Adjust your thermostat to 78 degrees or higher, after cooling your home to below-normal levels in the morning.
  • Don’t charge electric vehicles during this critical period.
  • Draw drapes and turn off unnecessary lighting.
  • Limit the opening of refrigerators, a major user of electricity in most homes. The average refrigerator is opened 33 times a day.
  • Keep refrigerator full (with bottles of water if nothing else) and unplug your second refrigerator if you have one.

 

 

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brussels targets aviation fuel tax in drive to reduce carbon emission

Commission to unveil a dozen policies designed to ensure EU can meet pollution goals

Mon Jul 12, 2021 - Financial Times
by Mehreen Khan

Quote

The rules should, however, exempt cargo-only flights, and apply lower rates for non-commercial flights, according to the draft. 

Brussels will set out plans this week to increase taxes on polluting fuels and introduce an EU-wide levy on aviation kerosene for the first time, under measures intended to put it at the forefront of global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. 

The European Commission will propose a revamp of its 15-year-old rule book on carbon taxes to provide an incentive for low-emissions fuel and impose levies on heavily polluting energy used in the airline and shipping industry. The measure is one of a dozen policies to be unveiled on Wednesday to ensure the EU can meet a goal of reducing average carbon emissions by 55 per cent by 2030. Others include an extension of the EU’s emissions trading scheme, tougher CO2 rules for cars and a carbon levy on some imports.

A draft legal text of the energy taxation directive, seen by the Financial Times, proposes gradually increasing minimum rates on the most polluting fuels such as petrol, diesel and kerosene used as jet-fuel over a period of 10 years. Zero-emissions fuels, green hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuels will face no levies for a decade under the proposed system. 

The “Fit for 55” package puts the EU at the vanguard of decarbonisation efforts but the proposals risk a backlash from some governments and the public.

Introducing environmental taxes is likely to be among the most politically sensitive measures in the commission’s plans. Unlike most of Brussels’ new green policies, updating the energy taxation directive will require unanimous backing from the EU’s 27 member states to become a reality. 

Paolo Gentiloni, Brussels economics commissioner, has called the reform a “now or never moment”.

“Paradoxically, [the current energy taxation directive] is incentivising fossil fuels and not environmentally friendly fuels. We have to change this,” Gentiloni said at a meeting of G20 finance ministers this weekend. 

The EU’s energy taxation rules date back to 2006 and have created a system that “favours fossil fuel use” owing to a series of exemptions and loopholes for dirty energy across different member states, according to the text. The directive is designed to set a series of minimum tax rates for energy products across the bloc. 

One of the big changes being proposed is an end to exemptions for heavily polluting fuels such as kerosene used in aviation. The draft says jet fuel used in intra-EU flights should be subject to a new minimum rate of taxation, the details of which have not yet been decided, said officials. The rules should, however, exempt cargo-only flights, and apply lower rates for non-commercial flights, according to the draft. 

Although a kerosene tax has been welcomed by many EU countries, it has sparked resistance from the aviation industry. Brussels is also planning to phase out free carbon credits provided to the sector under its ETS. Along with the taxation rules, the phase out of free allowances would significantly increase the pressure on aviation to reduce its emissions or pay for polluting. 

The draft says gradually increasing minimum taxes during a ten-year transition would help avoid the problem of “double taxation” for the maritime and aviation industries which risk being subject to two forms of CO2 pricing. 

Airline group A4E has said new carbon taxes for the sector are “ecologically and economically counterproductive” and that market-based carbon pricing should be the only main form of CO2 pricing placed on the industry. 

“An intra-EU kerosene tax could lead to a competitive distortion within Europe’s internal market and globally,” said A4E. “A possible kerosene tax that would set minimum tax rates for intra-EU flights is likely to have the most negative impact, as it may open the door to different rates inside the single market.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

https://www.newsoptimist.ca/opinion/climate-change-deniers-keep-trying-to-switch-the-narrative-1.23970797

In an interview with Michael Lemonick for Scientific American in October 2010, Curry admitted she had received financial support from Big Oil. "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“ A major new study of the economics of solar, published in Harvard Business Review (HBR), finds that the waste produced by solar panels will make electricity from solar panels four times more expensive than the world’s leading energy analysts thought. “The economics of solar,” write Atalay Atasu and Luk N. Van Wassenhove of Institut Européen d'Administration des Affaires, one of Europe’s leading business schools, and Serasu Duranof the University of Calgary, will “darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash."

 

Conventional wisdom today holds that the world will quadruple the number of solar panels in the world over the next decade. “And that’s not even taking into consideration the further impact of possible new regulations and incentives launched by the green-friendly Biden administration,” Atasu, Wassenhove, and Duran write in HBR.

But the volume of solar panel waste will destroy the economics of solar even with the subsidies, they say. "By 2035,” write the three economists, “discarded panels would outweigh new units sold by 2.56 times. In turn, this would catapult the LCOE (levelized cost of energy, a measure of the overall cost of an energy-producing asset over its lifetime) to four times the current projection.”

The solar industry, and even supposedly neutral energy agencies, grossly underestimated how much waste solar panels would produce. The HBR authors, all of whom are business school professors, looked at the economics from the point of view of the customer, and past trends, and calculated that customers would replace panels far sooner than every 30 years, as the industry assumes.  

“If early replacements occur as predicted by our statistical model,” they write, solar panels “can produce 50 times more waste in just four years than [International Renewable Energy Agency] IRENA anticipates.” 

The HBR authors found that the price of panels, the amount solar panel owners are paid by the local electric company, and sunlight-to-electricity efficiency determined how quickly people replaced their panels. 

“Alarming as they are,” they write, “these stats may not do full justice to the crisis, as our analysis is restricted to residential installations. With commercial and industrial panels added to the picture, the scale of replacements could be much, much larger.”

What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.

The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics. 

“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar---including-that-its-clean-and-cheap---was-wrong/?sh=65d7b3585fe5

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 6:16 AM, deicer said:

https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

https://www.newsoptimist.ca/opinion/climate-change-deniers-keep-trying-to-switch-the-narrative-1.23970797

In an interview with Michael Lemonick for Scientific American in October 2010, Curry admitted she had received financial support from Big Oil. "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007.” 

So what ????

Hurricane forecasting would be a rather important item wouldn't you say ??

So naturally that must sway her opinion ??

Gimme a break with this garbage.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://grist.org/accountability/how-exxon-sabotages-climate-legislation-lobbyist/

How to sabotage climate legislation? An Exxon lobbyist explains.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-particular-psychology-of-destroying-a-planet

The Particular Psychology of Destroying a Planet

What kind of thinking goes into engaging in planetary sabotage?
 
 

Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report

This article is more than 2 years old

Ad campaigns hide investment in a huge expansion of oil and gas extraction, says InfluenceMap

The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report.

Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global warming, the report said.

 

Increasingly they are using social media to successfully push their agenda to weaken and oppose any meaningful legislation to tackle global warming.

In the run-up to the US midterm elections last year $2m was spent on targeted Facebook and Instagram ads by global oil giants and their industry bodies, promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production, according to the report published on Friday by InfluenceMap.

Separately, BP donated $13m to a campaign, also supported by Chevron, that successfully stopped a carbon tax in Washington state – $1m of which was spent on social media ads, the research shows.

Advertisement

Edward Collins, the report’s author, analysed corporate spending on lobbying, briefing and advertising, and assessed what proportion was dedicated to climate issues.

He said: “Oil majors’ climate branding sounds increasingly hollow and their credibility is on the line. They publicly support climate action while lobbying against binding policy. They advocate low-carbon solutions but such investments are dwarfed by spending on expanding their fossil fuel business.”

After the Paris climate agreement in 2015 the large integrated oil and gas companies said they supported a price on carbon and formed groups like the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative which promote voluntary measures.

But, the report states, there is a glaring gap between their words and their actions.

The five publicly listed oil majors – ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and Total – now spend about $195m a year on branding campaigns suggesting they support action against climate change.

But the report said these campaigns were misleading the public about the extent of the oil companies’ actions because while publicly endorsing the need to act, they are massively increasing investment in a huge expansion of oil and gas extraction. In 2019 their spending will increase to $115bn, with just 3% of that directed at low carbon projects.

Shell said in a statement: “We firmly reject the premise of this report. We are very clear about our support for the Paris agreement, and the steps that we are taking to help meet society’s needs for more and cleaner energy.

“We make no apology for talking to policymakers and regulators around the world to make our voice heard on crucial topics such as climate change and how to address it.”

Chevron said it disagreed with the report’s findings. “Chevron is taking prudent, cost-effective actions and is committed to working with policymakers to design balanced and transparent greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies that address environmental goals and ensure consumers have access to affordable, reliable and ever cleaner energy.”

The successful lobbying and direct opposition to policy measures to tackle global warming have hindered governments globally in their efforts to implement policies after the Paris agreement to meet climate targets and keep warming below 1.5C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

The story says the report was authored by Edward Collins but I can not find any information about the author other than a possible link to a construction firm.  Anyone have any idea who his is and his credentials?  

He is an analyst at InfluenceMap...

https://influencemap.org/page/About-Us

Ed has led InfluenceMap's research on lobbying and corporate influence since 2017, having joined the company in 2015. Working with a team of dedicated analysts, Ed manages InfluenceMap's system for tracking and assessing the climate change lobbying of world's largest 300 industrial companies and their key trade associations. He represents InfluenceMap in key processes such as the Climate Action 100+'s Technical Advisory Group. Before InfluenceMap, Ed completed a Masters at the London School of Economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.7760a8c08aa9941b31d903756380fa1c.png

Powerful anti-oil groups march into Canada’s halls of power

By Gwyn Morgan on March 15, 2019No Comment

With Gerald Butts and others at the epicentre of power, it’s no wonder the oil industry has plummeted into purgatory

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Gwyn MorganCanadians watch Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election comfortable in the belief that such foreign interference couldn’t happen here.

Except it did happen here.

And while the Russians adamantly deny interference in American political affairs, the perpetrators of interference in the 2015 Canadian federal election not only devised and executed a plan aimed at helping to elect the party friendly to their cause, they publicly trumpeted their success in achieving just that. And then they got a huge bonus when one of their most fervent comrades was appointed to the most powerful non-elected position in the country.

This story has all the elements of a fiction novel. But it’s not fiction.

 

Piece by meticulously researched piece, independent researcher Vivian Krause spent almost 10 years unveiling the information. Every detail has been corroborated by sources, including American and Canadian tax records, together with documents and statements from the perpetrators themselves.

Vivian Krause Vivian Krause
10-year search for the truth

The story begins in 2008, when a group of radical American anti-fossil-fuel environmental organizations created Tar Sands Campaign Strategy 2.1 designed “to landlock the Canadian oilsands by delaying or blocking the expansion or development of key pipelines.”

A list of key strategic targets included: “educating and organizing First Nations to challenge construction of pipelines across their traditional territories” and bringing “multiple actions in Canadian federal and provincial courts.” A “raising the negatives” section includes recruiting celebrity spokespersons such as Leonardo DiCaprio to “lend their brand to opponents of tar sands and generating a high negative media profile for tar sands oil.”

Executing such a massive intrusion into Canadian affairs would take years and a large amount of money. Ironically, much of that anti-oil money came from the legacy of the man who founded the U.S. oil industry, John D. Rockefeller. Joining the Rockefeller Foundation were the two legacy foundations of Hewlett-Packard co-founders William Hewlett and David Packard.

These foundations, together with other American anti-fossil-fuel charities, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the U.S.-based Tides Foundation, a murky organization that serves as a legal money launderer, receiving donations from other foundations and redistributing the funds without revealing sources.

Since American and Canadian tax laws require charities to document receipt and disbursement of funds, Krause was able to gather irrefutable evidence that tens of millions of dollars were transferred from Tides U.S. to its Tides Canada subsidiary. Moreover, the resourceful Krause obtained 70 covering letters showing recipients and use of the funds.

The largest portion the funds were directed at raising fears of oil spills among First Nations, including seven payments to help build “indigenous solidarity resistance to pipeline routes,” maintain “opposition to oil tankers” and to “provide legal support for actions constraining tar sands development.”

Funding also went to the Great Bear Initiative to build support for designating the so-called Spirit Bear habitat a nature reserve. Those initiatives resulted in the successful court appeal by First Nations suspending approval by the former government of Stephen Harper of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Then came Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s lamentable decision to disallow oil pipelines through the Great Bear Rainforest, along with a north-coast tanker ban, driving the final nails into the coffin of Northern Gateway.

Other payments include: the Pembina Institute to “advance … the narrative that oil sands expansion is problematic;” Greenpeace Canada “for events to show opposition to pipelines and tar sands expansion;” the Living Oceans Society “to build opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline” and Forest Ethics “to conduct education and outreach opposing the Kinder Morgan and Northern Gateway pipelines.”

The American anti-oilsands funding didn’t stop at encouraging opposition to oil pipelines. The Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative, one of the most politically active organizations in the country, received millions of dollars from Tides Canada to run get-the-vote out campaigns in the 2017 B.C. provincial election, including deployment of thousands of campaign workers in Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver’s riding. Without his election, the anti-Trans Mountain NDP/Green coalition wouldn’t have gained power.

At the federal level, money was funnelled directly to campaign activists working to help the Liberals win the 2015 election. Vancouver based non-profit society Leadnow, directly and through the B.C.-based Sisu Institute, received more than $1 million from Tides Canada with the express objective of defeating the pro-oil industry Harper Conservatives. The society claims its campaigners helped defeat Conservative candidates in 25 ridings.

Given that no new export pipelines have been built in the 10 years since their anti-oilsands campaign began, one must conclude that the American organizations have been spectacularly successful. But all that funding directed at First Nations and other anti-pipeline activist campaigns wouldn’t have been nearly so effective without the election of an ideologically anti-fossil-fuel government in Ottawa.

Until recently, the anti-tar sands website contained the following statement by campaign quarterback Michael Marx: “The controversy from the campaign contributed to political victories at the provincial and national level in 2015 and led to bold climate commitments by Canadian leaders.” Realizing the implications of Marx’s statement, it was removed following a revealing expose aired in the Jan. 20 edition of CBC’s The Weekly hosted by Wendy Mesley. It’s very much worth watching.

Election of the anti-fossil fuel Trudeau government would have been ample cause for a victory celebration. But the campaigners received a bonus beyond their wildest dreams when one of their most dedicated eco-warriors was appointed principal secretary to the prime minister, the most powerful post in the prime minister’s office. From 2008 to 2012, Gerald Butts was president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada (WWF), an important Tides campaign partner.

Butts used his position in the PMO to bring other former campaigners with him. Mario Reynolds, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna’s chief of staff, is past executive director of the Pembina Institute, recipient of substantial Tides funding. Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi’s chief of staff is also a former WWF Canada official and Sarah Goodman, policy adviser to the prime minister, is a former VP of Tides Canada.

With these people at the epicentre of power, it’s no wonder the oil industry, and the hundreds of thousands of people it employed, has plummeted into political and policy purgatory.

Now Butts, the mastermind behind that economic, social and national unity disaster, has resigned. But there’s more disturbing news. I was startled to learn that Butts received two separate payments from WWF Canada totalling $361,642 during his first two years at the PMO.

In a May 26, 2016 tweet to a question from Krause, Butts responds: “It was my contract severance.”

Over my entire career leading one of Canada’s largest companies and serving as a director of four others, I have never heard of severance paid when someone decided to quit their job. But then, given that he was receiving those payments from WWF Canada while at the PMO, one might conclude that he never really changed jobs. He just combined the old and new ones together.

That, fellow Canadians, is the story that never could have been told without the determination of a real Canadian patriot who dedicated 10 years searching for the truth.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired Canadian business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, powerful groups and people do!

https://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pulpit-and-politics/2019/09/death-david-koch-reminder-who-bankrolls-canadas-right

Newspapers have recently carried obituaries on the death of David Koch, the U.S billionaire. Through Koch Industries, David and his equally wealthy brother Charles controlled the second-largest private corporation in the U.S., with ownership in chemicals, pipelines and fossil fuel extraction. The company was also, until recently, a major investor in Alberta's oil sands and a long-standing backer of right-wing Canadian think-tanks.

Dark Money

According to Dark Money, a deeply researched book by Jane Mayer, a writer for the New Yorker, the Kochs poured at least $100 million in the U.S. and elsewhere to create a far-right network aimed at influencing elections by promoting chosen conservative candidates, think-tanks and policies. Through an organization called Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs were also major funders of the Tea Party movement, which eventually took control of the Republican Party and moved it hard to the authoritarian right.

The Kochs described themselves as libertarians who wanted government out of the way but their campaigns were also transparently self-interested. The organizations they financed promoted deep tax cuts, a loosening of environmental regulations, attacks on labour unions and support to climate-change deniers. As Mayer writes in Dark Money, "The Kochs vehemently opposed the government taking any action on climate change that would hurt their fossil fuel profits." They also opposed gun laws, an obscenity in the age of El Paso, Parkland, Sandy Hook, and any other number of mass shootings.

Canadian connection

The Kochs also have a significant Canadian connection. Until just recently, a subsidiary of Koch Industries was the largest foreign holder of exploration leases in Alberta's oil sands, with at least 1.1 million acres, an area approximately the size of Prince Edward Island. However, Koch has recently sold most of its oil sands licences to a Calgary-based company.

But the Canadian connection does not end there. The website North 99 says that the Kochs were involved in providing millions of dollars in support to an array of conservative Canadian think-tanks and other organizations which promote a right-wing agenda in this country. Many of these organizations will be familiar to anyone who follows the news. They include: the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, MacDonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy, Manning Centre, and the Montreal Economic Institute. Those groups claim to be independent but they devotedly support conservative causes, and ultimately the Conservative Party led by Andrew Scheer.

Fraser Institute

Among these organizations, the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute is a Koch favourite. Fraser also bills itself as an independent research organization but in fact it regularly produces flawed reports that read more like propaganda than the products of academe. The research group Desmog sources a study done by Greenpeace USA to show that the Fraser Institute received at least $1.4 million from Koch-related foundations between 1997 and 2017. It is perhaps not surprising that Fraser Institute has used its reports to deny that climate change exists and regularly attacks assessment reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Hidden donors

The Fraser Institute will not release its list of donors but researchers unearthed information about American benefactors by using U.S. government tax records. Fraser is also listed as a charitable organization in Canada and can provide tax receipts to donors in this country. Incredibly, an organization which regularly attacks government policies on climate change, taxation, public education and medicare has so far apparently escaped scrutiny by the Canada Revenue Agency about its constant right-wing advocacy. This is doubly ironic because many other organizations with charitable status -- including the Suzuki Foundation, Kairos, and the Pembina Institute -- were forced by the CRA to undertake expensive audits during the tenure of the Harper government.

Intimidation

Back then, Harper's energy minister Joe Oliver accused "environmental and other radical groups" of attempting to influence Canadian politics, particularly as related to the construction of pipelines. Oliver and Harper are long gone but their narrative has been picked up by the current Alberta premier. In July 2019, Jason Kenney established a $2.5-million provincial inquiry into, in his words, "foreign-funded special interests" and their campaigns to stop development in the oil sands. He singled out various environmental groups and even alleged that the Pembina Institute had accepted $8 million from foreign interests to oppose and challenge Alberta's energy industry. Pembina promptly denied that accusation, saying that 85 per cent of its revenue comes from Canadian sources.

Look no further

If Kenney is searching for foreigners who meddle in Canadian politics, he need look no further than Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, the John Templeton Foundation and an array of other foreign organizations and corporations that sends millions of dollars a year to the Fraser Institute and the other right-wing think-tanks mentioned earlier in this piece. As the federal election approaches in October, we should view anything those organizations have to say with a good deal of skepticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deicer said:

Yes, powerful groups and people do!

https://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pulpit-and-politics/2019/09/death-david-koch-reminder-who-bankrolls-canadas-right

Newspapers have recently carried obituaries on the death of David Koch, the U.S billionaire. Through Koch Industries, David and his equally wealthy brother Charles controlled the second-largest private corporation in the U.S., with ownership in chemicals, pipelines and fossil fuel extraction. The company was also, until recently, a major investor in Alberta's oil sands and a long-standing backer of right-wing Canadian think-tanks.

Dark Money

According to Dark Money, a deeply researched book by Jane Mayer, a writer for the New Yorker, the Kochs poured at least $100 million in the U.S. and elsewhere to create a far-right network aimed at influencing elections by promoting chosen conservative candidates, think-tanks and policies. Through an organization called Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs were also major funders of the Tea Party movement, which eventually took control of the Republican Party and moved it hard to the authoritarian right.

The Kochs described themselves as libertarians who wanted government out of the way but their campaigns were also transparently self-interested. The organizations they financed promoted deep tax cuts, a loosening of environmental regulations, attacks on labour unions and support to climate-change deniers. As Mayer writes in Dark Money, "The Kochs vehemently opposed the government taking any action on climate change that would hurt their fossil fuel profits." They also opposed gun laws, an obscenity in the age of El Paso, Parkland, Sandy Hook, and any other number of mass shootings.

Canadian connection

The Kochs also have a significant Canadian connection. Until just recently, a subsidiary of Koch Industries was the largest foreign holder of exploration leases in Alberta's oil sands, with at least 1.1 million acres, an area approximately the size of Prince Edward Island. However, Koch has recently sold most of its oil sands licences to a Calgary-based company.

But the Canadian connection does not end there. The website North 99 says that the Kochs were involved in providing millions of dollars in support to an array of conservative Canadian think-tanks and other organizations which promote a right-wing agenda in this country. Many of these organizations will be familiar to anyone who follows the news. They include: the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, MacDonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy, Manning Centre, and the Montreal Economic Institute. Those groups claim to be independent but they devotedly support conservative causes, and ultimately the Conservative Party led by Andrew Scheer.

Fraser Institute

Among these organizations, the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute is a Koch favourite. Fraser also bills itself as an independent research organization but in fact it regularly produces flawed reports that read more like propaganda than the products of academe. The research group Desmog sources a study done by Greenpeace USA to show that the Fraser Institute received at least $1.4 million from Koch-related foundations between 1997 and 2017. It is perhaps not surprising that Fraser Institute has used its reports to deny that climate change exists and regularly attacks assessment reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Hidden donors

The Fraser Institute will not release its list of donors but researchers unearthed information about American benefactors by using U.S. government tax records. Fraser is also listed as a charitable organization in Canada and can provide tax receipts to donors in this country. Incredibly, an organization which regularly attacks government policies on climate change, taxation, public education and medicare has so far apparently escaped scrutiny by the Canada Revenue Agency about its constant right-wing advocacy. This is doubly ironic because many other organizations with charitable status -- including the Suzuki Foundation, Kairos, and the Pembina Institute -- were forced by the CRA to undertake expensive audits during the tenure of the Harper government.

Intimidation

Back then, Harper's energy minister Joe Oliver accused "environmental and other radical groups" of attempting to influence Canadian politics, particularly as related to the construction of pipelines. Oliver and Harper are long gone but their narrative has been picked up by the current Alberta premier. In July 2019, Jason Kenney established a $2.5-million provincial inquiry into, in his words, "foreign-funded special interests" and their campaigns to stop development in the oil sands. He singled out various environmental groups and even alleged that the Pembina Institute had accepted $8 million from foreign interests to oppose and challenge Alberta's energy industry. Pembina promptly denied that accusation, saying that 85 per cent of its revenue comes from Canadian sources.

Look no further

If Kenney is searching for foreigners who meddle in Canadian politics, he need look no further than Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, the John Templeton Foundation and an array of other foreign organizations and corporations that sends millions of dollars a year to the Fraser Institute and the other right-wing think-tanks mentioned earlier in this piece. As the federal election approaches in October, we should view anything those organizations have to say with a good deal of skepticism.

I guess I am missing your point?????   Was it big money   and or other  big funded lobby groups can say anything they want??????   and the guidable will believe which ever tickles their fancy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, deicer said:

Just acknowledging what you said about big money.

Like the tide, it flows both ways. 

Times are changing.  One is money well spent, one is money wasted.

All depends on your viewpoint.

 

"but in both cases, it is interesting to see where the money to do so came from.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All part of the limited context plot...

U.S. urges 50,000 Chevy Bolt owners to park outside because of fire risks

GM made the same recommendation and added owners should not leave vehicles charging overnight.

chevbolt.jpg.e683ce321e81c0e6bfb29f15359ada5d.jpg

Thu Jul 15, 2021 - Automotive News
by David Shepardson

WASHINGTON -- U.S. auto safety regulators on Wednesday urged about 50,000 owners of General Motors electric Chevrolet Bolt vehicles that were recalled last year to park outside and away from homes and other structures after charging because of fire risks.

Earlier on Wednesday, GM made the same recommendation and added owners should not leave vehicles charging overnight. The recommendation was prompted after the largest U.S. automaker said it was investigating reports of two recent fires in vehicles that were recalled in November for fire risks.

The 50,000 U.S. Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicles are from the 2017-2019 model years and were recalled for the potential of an unattended fire in the high-voltage battery pack underneath the backseat’s bottom cushion.

NHTSA opened an investigation in October into the Bolt fires, the agency noted Wednesday and "continues to evaluate the information received, and is looking into these latest fires."

The November recall of nearly 69,000 Chevrolet Bolt EVs -- including about 50,000 in the United States -- with high voltage batteries produced at LG Chem Ltd's Ochang, South Korea facility, was made after five reported fires and two minor injuries.

Among the fires was a Bolt belonging to an influential state lawmaker in Vermont, reports said.

In April, GM also announced a software update and said dealers would use "diagnostic tools to identify potential battery anomalies and replace battery module assemblies as necessary."

NHTSA said owners should park outside indefinitely regardless of whether they have had the software update completed.

GM said in April it would make the diagnostic software standard in the 2022 Bolt EV and electric utility vehicles, as well as future GM electric vehicles, and would offer the update for all other Bolt EVs on the road at a future date. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Study blows hole in PM's climate plan

 

“ But that’s not the purpose of Trudeau’s ever changing climate plans which from the beginning have treated Canadians like mushrooms — covering them with manure and keeping them in the dark — while making unrealistic promises which make no sense to anyone who can do math.”

 

“ To add insult to injury, the billions of dollars federal and provincial governments plan to spend subsidizing the manufacture and sale of zero emission vehicles, as well as create the massive, cross-Canada infrastructure needed to charge them, is one of the most expensive and least efficient ways to reduce emissions.

A 2017 study by the Montreal Economic Institute called electric vehicle subsidies (meaning zero emission vehicles) exactly that.

“It’s just a waste,” a senior associate MEI researcher said. “Not only do these programs cost taxpayers a fortune, but they also have little effect on GHG emissions.”

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-study-blows-hole-in-pms-climate-plan?fbclid=IwAR1F28URJNJ0N3hyOAFxwMdCVSKb-8KNjlt0VBhisE-sFPdDkhD0BoJn1Yw

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya don't mess with the mesa....

The US’s largest solar farm is canceled because Nevada locals don’t want to look at it

mesa.thumb.jpg.ec6b2ca89130201c2a6a28b9f0b68cc6.jpg

Tue Jul 27, 2021. - electrek

The Battle Born Solar Project in Nevada – what would have been the largest solar farm in the US – is now canceled because nearby residents said it would be an eyesore.

The 850 megawatt, 9,200-acre solar farm, which would have been constructed in southern Nevada’s Moapa Valley, was to sit on 14 square miles on the Mormon Mesa, a flat-topped hill around 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

California-based Arevia Power and Solar Partners VII LLC withdrew their application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) last week in the face of opposition from a group called Save Our Mesa.

The group, which is made up of residents, environmentalists, and others, feels that the solar farm would hinder hiking, camping, driving off-highway vehicles, and horseback riding and deter tourists from visiting artist Michael Heizer’s environmental sculpture, “Double Negative”.

We have been called a whining NIMBY group, well this is mostly true because this project IS literally IN our backyard!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those left wing nuts that think we have to do our part, control the worlds climate, reduce GHGs, pay our carbon tax and choke the life out of Alberta in the name putting an end to dirty oil, while BC still employs thousands in the coal industry……here is an eye opener on Justin’s futile climate change policies….

Quote

 

Coal-spewing China has taken the world's climate hostage

For decades, the trite way of explaining everything from U.S. foreign policy to environmental degradation has been “it’s all about oil.” And there has been some truth to that.

But it’s been 16 years since the Kyoto Protocol entered into force, and 12 years since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in Copenhagen. Six years ago in Paris, the world’s major greenhouse-gas emitters committed to a target that would hold the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 C higher than pre-industrial levels, aiming to restructure economies to cut net emissions to zero by 2050.

It’s not all about oil anymore. It’s all about coal, and it’s all about China.

 

China has been far and away the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases since 2001, when the country leapfrogged North America’s carbon emissions after having tripled its output during the last decade of the 20th century. Since 2001, while the North American and European output remained fairly steady and has now slightly declined, China’s contribution to the planet’s carbon load doubled again. Carbon emissions from Japan and Russia have flat-lined since 2001, and while India’s greenhouse gas output has doubled this century, it’s still only half the United States’ output.

Canada barely registers at about 1.6 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions, but this relatively piddling contribution to the climate crisis still puts Canada among the top 10 countries in the greenhouse-gas sweepstakes — and in no way absolves us from the responsibility of shouldering our fair share of the international effort to keep the planet cool. But while we’ve been busy beating up on those beastly Albertans, Beijing has been laughing at us……..

Widespread anger in China over its pollution-choked cities has moved coal plants away from many urban centres, and Beijing has made some less-than-convincing moves to uncouple its own economy from coal. But while all that was going on, China became the world’s largest investor in overseas coal projects. Over the past 20 years, Chinese state banks have laid out nearly $250 billion in overseas energy sectors, heavily favouring coal-powered generation.

 

Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, Chinese banks have emerged as the top 10 lenders for coal financing around the world. The main investors: the Bank of China, China CITIC Bank, and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. It’s a profitable racket, with no risk of furious Chinese masses choking on coal pollution. The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air has found that China’s overseas coal projects, in some of the world’s poorest countries, produce pollution up to seven times as toxic as China’s domestic standards allow…….

The U.S.-China talks in Tianjin this week went nowhere, and Beijing’s postures and demands made one thing abundantly clear. The idea that despite our differences with China, liberal democracies must somehow come to a co-operative rapprochement with Beijing is as much an obsolete cliché as the notion that it’s all about oil.

Chinese diplomats hectored the American delegation. Sure, maybe we’ll get to carbon neutrality, 10 years after everybody else does. In the meantime, shut up about Hong Kong, shut up about the ongoing genocide in Xinjiang, shut up about Tibet, shut up about Beijing’s growing reach as a global police-state hegemon, roll back all your sanctions, and never mind about Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan. We are going to darken the skies with coal smoke and load the upper 9stratosphere with greenhouse gases, and there’s nothing to discuss except your submission. That is Beijing’s intention.

The sooner the world comes to grips with what Beijing intends, the better.

 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-coal-spewing-china-has-taken-the-worlds-climate-hostage

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO I hear a stat today that I did not bother to research because....well...Don't really want to but it does make some sense.

Per Capita China produces less Carbon than the rest of the G7 countries...PER CAPITA.

when you look at the numbers that makes the USA the number 1 Carbon producer.

This does not take into account the carbon produced in China on behalf of American interests.

One day I might dive into the stats but not today

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...