Jump to content

Sorry Albertans, stuff your fossil fuel

Recommended Posts

Is there someone here who knows how to start a petition that will go viral. DiCaprio the fraud has now signed an open letter asking RBC to stop financing the oil sands. 

I suggest a petition to be signed by millions to get Caprio to permanently ground(not sell) his business jet an his yacht, to show that he is serious about stopping global warming. The petition should state that if he does not pledge to fly only on commercial airlines for the rest of his life, he should be called out as a fraud. Same thing if he just sells them.

You can read the important stuff at these three links:

Leonardo DiCaprio, Scarlett Johansson And More Stars Sign Open Letter Calling On RBC To Stop Financing Controversial Canadian Pipeline (msn.com)

About DiCaprio's bizjet:


About DiCaprio's yacht:




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

Speaking of the frauds who claim to be such decent human beings, look at their ESG funds where you do good for the world. While trying to crush our oil industry, they are supporting the Russian one. And a couple of the ESG funds were buying more in Russian banks while Putin was massing troops around Ukraine. Folks, they are frauds either with ulterior motives or incapable of logical thought process. And now, by allowing Putin to put the final pieces in his long term goal of invading Ukraine, have placed you in the situation of financing a massacre in Europe.


Why ESG funds 'shockingly' buy Russian oil instead of Canadian crude

Jeff Lagerquist  17 hrs ago

Russia's war on Ukraine continues to expose uncomfortable realities for environmental, social and governance-focused (ESG) investments, prompting calls for the asset management industry to rethink the loosely-defined term as analysts point to "shocking" holdings within some funds.

A new report from CIBC Capital Markets shows many of the 10 largest energy holdings across ESG funds have pared down or exited investments in Canada's oil sands, while half stayed invested in Russia. At the end of 2021, the bank found ESG funds owned twice as much Russian oil and gas as Canadian oil and gas.

"Perhaps most shockingly, the ratio of dollars held in Gazprom (a Russian state-owned energy firm) was six times that of Suncor," the CIBC analysts wrote in research published on Monday.

According to the report, the big four Russian energy companies, NK Lukoil, Novatek, Gazprom and NK Rosneft, accounted for about 0.2 per cent of the global ESG holdings. That's double the size of investments in Canada's TC Energy (TRP.TO)(TRP), Suncor Energy (SU.TO)(SU) and Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ.TO)(CNQ), the bank said.

"Russia and Saudi Arabia may well emit less CO2 per produced barrel of oil equivalent than some North American firms, but they also invariably have less robust social and governance oversight," the CIBC analysts wrote. 

"This says nothing of the reality many of their energy entities are de-facto state controlled and often aligned (read: weaponized) with foreign policy objectives – many of which will be an affront to mainstream ESG investors."

Several of the world's largest companies and institutional investors have moved to cut ties to Russia in recent weeks, amid increasingly violent attacks on Ukraine's population. ESG funds held at least US$8.3 billion in Russian assets before Russia invaded Ukraine, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. 

Those include the country's financial firms. Bloomberg News recently reported that Vanguard Group and Northern Trust upped their stakes in Russia's leading bank through their respective index-based ESG funds in January, as Vladimir Putin's forces amassed on Ukraine's borders. 

Vlad Tasevski, chief operating officer and head of product at Purpose Investments, says these examples show the need to rebalance the trio of ESG priorities. He says the environmental "E" in ESG is being over-emphasized, likely due to the greater challenge of measuring the social and governance variables, compared to hard carbon emissions data.

"I think we are going to see a reassessment both by investors, and the data providers of information for ESG factors," he said in a phone interview. "Work on the 'S' and 'G' has been around for a while, but it's still newer. They're maybe not as straightforward as the environmental factors."

Tasevski isn't overly surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for Canadian fossil fuel producers across ESG funds. He says Canadian producers have been "overwhelmingly negatively impacted by the ESG movement," even as the industry has worked to shrink its carbon footprint, and invested in technology like carbon capture and storage.

CIBC says global flows into ESG funds were down more than 50 per cent through the first two months of this year, after setting records in 2020 and 2021. The bank says flows out of ESG funds have outpaced net outflows from other asset classes.

"Perhaps the recent uptick in ESG fund outflows is simply a reflection of investors becoming aware that simple 'black box' metrics, such as ESG scores, often used in security selection, are inadequate for a topic as multifaceted as ESG," the analysts wrote.

Is ESG good for investors?

Danielle Fugere, president of the California-based shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, says ESG is an umbrella term that's never been clearly defined. She notes many ESG funds in the United States can be labelled "carbon free," even if they hold fossil fuel assets, under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules.

On Monday, the SEC released a proposal for what could become its first-ever mandate for what U.S. companies need to tell investors about their carbon footprint. Fugere says investors are better-served when corporate climate analysis is separated from unrelated social and governance measures.

"Climate is its own area," Fugere said in an interview. "It should be appropriately removed from issues of human rights."







  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the WDYTWGTH file:


$40 a ton is not nearly enough... not by a long shot. Where are the greenies who wanted this and why aren't they demanding a higher rate? At present, this is nothing more than an income redistribution scheme, you will not achieve your goals through weak sister efforts (like this) or by mandating magic lightbulbs.  

If you're not up for this (and I don't think you are) then please stop. If you want it though, let's do the thing right and get on it. Please stop fooling yourself, or thinking that you can fool others; right now you have pain for no gain, little else. This is doable but only if/when you come to terms with the effort it requires. If you aren't up to it, now's the time to tap.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Canada's oilpatch can't solve the energy crisis


Federal government pledging more oil and gas for Europe, but it's far from a sure thing

Kyle Bakx · CBC News · Posted: Mar 25, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 7 hours ago
The federal government is pledging to boost oil production by about five per cent this year to help European countries. (Kyle Bakx/CBC)

After meeting with his global counterparts in Paris this week, Canada's natural resources minister pledged to pump out more oil and gas to alleviate the energy crisis in Europe.

Oil and natural gas are in short supply in parts of the world after many countries sanctioned Russia following its invasion of Ukraine.


The Canadian industry wants to increase production, but there are questions about how much extra oil and natural gas can be pulled from the ground and what impact it could have on the world, especially considering oil production in Western Canada is already near record levels.

Jonathan Wilkinson announced Thursday that Canada's industry is expected to increase oil production by 200,000 barrels per day, and the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of natural gas per day, by the end of the year. 

Currently, Canada produces about 4.7 million barrels per day of oil, and exports about four million barrels per day.

World's energy woes

Commodity prices have spiked in the last month as Russia's exports, from oil to coal, have fallen. It's why gasoline prices hit record levels in Canada this month.

Europe is the biggest customer for Russia's oil and natural gas. That dependance is why European countries are having a difficult time following in the footsteps of Canada and the U.S., which both banned imports of Russian oil and gas.

WATCH | Searching for solutions as countries ban Russian oil:


Searching for solutions as countries ban Russian oil

7 days ago
With more countries banning Russian oil and looking to make deals on Saudi Arabia’s oil supply, it raises ethical issues considering the country’s human rights record. Plus, the opportunity this presents for countries to look at more environmentally friendly solutions. Ginella Massa talks to Deborah Yedlin, chair of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, and Tzeporah Berman, program director for the environmental organization Stand.Earth. 8:10

"We have our European allies who are facing the prospect of not being able to heat their homes or fill up their trucks to actually service their grocery stores and their restaurants. It would be incredibly irresponsible for Canada to say 'we don't care,'" Wilkinson told reporters on Thursday.

Canada's role

Last year, Russia was exporting about 4.6 million barrels per day of crude oil, according to energy consultancy group Wood Mackenzie. Those exports have fallen because of the widespread economic and energy-focused sanctions against the country.

If Canada can boost its own oil output by 200,000 barrels per day, that in itself won't have much of an impact on offsetting those Russian barrels. If anything, it could help the United States, which is looking to replace about 500,000 barrels of petroleum that it was importing from Russia.

Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, pictured here at the UN climate conference in November, wants Canada to produce more oil and gas in 2022. (Kyle Bakx/CBC)

"Canada on its own is not going to solve the issue," said Wilkinson. "But Canada coming forward in conjunction with Brazil, in conjunction with the United States, and I'm sure there will be others, will help us to remove some of the tightness in the market."

While many Canadian companies say they want to help by increasing production, there are also some critics who say the federal government hasn't been supportive enough of the oilpatch, in terms of pipeline regulations and a proposed cap on emissions, among other policies.

"It's a temporary respite to the negative approach the federal government has taken toward energy development," said Robert Cooper, with the institutional sales and trading team at Calgary-based investment firm Acumen Capital Partners.

"I don't think that anyone in downtown Calgary believes that there's been a sudden change from the federal government as it pertains to resource development in this country," he said.

Turning up the taps easier said than done

For Canadian oil companies to produce more oil is much easier said than done, considering production levels were already high this winter. Alberta's oil production hit a record high in October and was also a record for the first 10 months of any year, which shows that industry hasn't been holding back on turning on the taps.

"My initial reaction is a bit of confusion, to be honest," said Rory Johnston, founder of the Commodity Context newsletter, about the federal announcement about increasing oil exports.

There is spare pipeline and rail capacity to boost exports, he said, the question is about the extra crude.

"It's difficult to see right now where a substantial or material increase in Canadian oil production could actually fill those increased pipelines, at this moment," he said.

Oil output can fluctuate

It's also worth considering that Canada's oil output can fluctuate from month-to-month because of cold weather, facility maintenance, and other impacts. 

Last year, exports reached four million barrels per day of oil, but were as low as 3.6 million during some months. Those swings don't have an impact on global oil markets, which shows how even if Canada is able to increase total capacity by 200,000 barrels per day, it's a relatively insignificant amount.

The potential boost in crude also might not happen with regularity, considering the nature of the industry. 

Building new oilsands facilities or expansions often take several years to develop and require billions of dollars of investment.

The Fort Hills oilsands mine began production in 2018. The facility hasn't operated at full capacity in recent years. (Kyle Bakx/CBC)

Oil major Cenovus has said any production increase this year will be marginal, while Suncor is expecting an increase of nearly 100,000 barrels per day from the Fort Hills oilsands facility, north of Fort McMurray.

The mine was operating at about 50 per cent capacity, but the company told CBC News the 194,000 barrel per day facility should be operating at about 90 per cent later this year.

There are opportunities to increase production to address the affordability issues in North America and the energy security problem around the world, but it's not a certainty, said Tristan Goodman, president of the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada.

"You will need investors to have confidence that they should increase production. And if you're not going to have investor confidence, you will not see increased production," he said.

Tristan Goodman, with the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada, takes part in a panel focusing on Canadian energy at CERAWeek by S&P Global in Houston earlier this month. (Kyle Bakx/CBC)

In recent years, investors have pushed oilpatch companies to give more cash to shareholders instead of increasing oil and gas production.

"In the long-term, or in the mid-term, there does need to be a conversation with Canadians over infrastructure related to natural gas and oil," he said.

Where will it go?

Even though Europe is the target destination for any increases in Canadian oil and natural gas, that's not a straightforward journey from Western Canada. The overwhelming majority of Canada's export pipelines head south into the U.S.

If more Canadian oil is shipped to Europe, it would likely first have to travel all the way down to the Gulf Coast to be loaded onto a tanker, before setting sail across the Atlantic.

It's a similar situation with natural gas as Canada does not have way to export to Europe without first traveling south across the border.

Still, even if all goes as planned with Canada's promise of more energy to the world, it's much too small on its own to move the needle when it comes to commodity prices or global supplies.

WATCH | Government looking to shore up short-term supply of crude oil and natural gas:


Minister says government looking to shore up short-term supply of crude oil and natural gas as U.S. bans Russian imports

17 days ago
Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson joins Power & Politics to discuss the U.S. ban on Russian imports of oil and gas. 5:54
Link to comment
Share on other sites

**bleep** or get off the pot Trudeau. Save the country or watch it sink !!


Canada torn between economy, climate in deciding oil project

Canada's Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, is in the hot seat over whether to approve a controversial offshore oil project.

Eco warrior turned Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, picked by Justin Trudeau five months ago to guide Canada's climate policy, will soon face his first major test in deciding on a new offshore oil project.

The Trudeau administration faces "a very big dilemma," Pierre-Olivier Pineau, an energy policy expert at HEC Montreal business school, told AFP. "If I had to bet, I think there is a slightly higher chance that he rejects the project," he said, opining that the government needs to show itself to be taking real climate actions, especially after being thrashed in 2018 for salvaging construction of a major pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to the Pacific coast.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2019 at 11:27 AM, Mitch Cronin said:

The world needs it to stay right where it is, so give it up. Stop raping forests and pumping filthy oil for temporary profit. Start thinking of priorities other than cash... you know, things that really matter, like long term survivability for our next generations.

Resistance to fossil fuel industry is growing and will keep doing so, so best you just give it up. 

A little reality of what happens when enough people listen to advice like this:



  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another dose of reality

The Impact Of Replacing Short Haul Flights With Trains


Industry advocacy bodies say new study suggests the environmental benefits of replacing flights with trains have limitations.

The French 'ban' on domestic flights where rail connections can be made in under two and a half hours is set to come into effect next month. Other countries in Europe are talking about similar strategies to reduce CO2 emissions from domestic air travel. But how much carbon emissions reduction will these measures actually contribute to? A new study released on Monday suggests the beneficial effects could be highly limited, potentially short-lived, and even counterproductive.logo_12781.png?cbuster=1643106178


Industry advocacy organizations join forces with consultancy firm
The report, dubbed 'Short-haul flying and sustainable connectivity', was commissioned by Airports Council International (ACI), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA), and the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO). These actors may not be entirely unbiased when it comes to limiting air travel. Still, the study was carried out by an economics and finance consultancy firm called Oxera, with eight offices around Europe.

Regional air travel only accounts for a very small percentage of EU CO2 emissions. Photo: Getty Images
Complicated model of impact calculation
The study suggests that the picture is far more complex than simply switching from one mode of transport to the other. First and foremost - a direct comparison of current emissions obviously indicates a lower CO2 emissions profile per passenger-kilometer for rail. However, multiple factors need to be considered when determining future impact, the study's authors state.

Perhaps one of the most important things to take into account is that it is short-haul aviation that will serve as the entry point for new carbon-free technologies. Electric, hydrogen-electric, and hydrogen aircraft are all projected to enter the shorter, regional segments of air travel first.

Meanwhile, flights under 500 km (for instance, Paris to Lyon or Amsterdam to Frankfurt) represent only between 1% and 2% of EU greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. As such, even if they are replaced, the impact will be fairly insubstantial. Especially when considering that not all such routes will cease to exist, in the name of safeguarding the competitiveness of national airlines.

Furthermore, the presentation of the study results suggests that despite ongoing investments into rail infrastructure, aviation decarbonization will be well underway by the time said infrastructure is deployed, reducing the emissions gap between air travel and rail.

Heart Aerospace_FLight_Säve_1
Limiting regional air travel could hinder the development of decarbonization technology for longer distances, the authors of the study suggest. Photo: Heart Aerospace
It's about 'and', not 'or'
There is also no guarantee that passengers will go for the rail option, potentially traveling by car instead, thus increasing overall emissions. The study's sponsors - ACI, ERA, and CANSO, joined forces to call for what they said was,

"...greater balance and factual accuracy in the debate around the intermodality of sustainable transport. All transport modes have their role to play; it’s not about aviation or rail, but aviation and rail."

Meanwhile, they also highlighted the importance of European regional airports and their role as 'essential tools to reduce territorial and social inequality', and aviation's contribution to employment and GDP of the EU. As such, they are calling on policymakers to take all environmental, social, and economic factors into account when deploying strategies for the decarbonization of air travel within the bloc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Amazing how some folks can carry on about "Filthy Oil" but fail to look into their own use of Petroleum Products.

A look at a typical dissenter

1. Lives in the country / suburbs 

2. Uses fossil fuel powered personal transportation

3. Uses fossil fuel driven devices to mow and plow

4. Heats their home using fossil derived fuels

5. Typically has a gas driven emergency generator

6. Quite often uses a "petroleum fueled" bbq.

and the list could go on......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NP View: The Liberal plan to smother the energy industry


The Liberals are either governing in a fantasy universe or they are being deliberately reckless. How else do you explain that, in the same week our European allies were preparing to ration energy, being held hostage as they are by a murderous tyrant wreaking havoc in Ukraine, our government announced a dramatic acceleration of its plan to hobble the oil and gas industry?


Germany was foolish to phase out nuclear power and coal, especially as quickly as it had planned, leaving it at the mercy of unreliable wind energy and natural gas imports from Russia. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault refuse to learn any lessons from recent events. They’ve ignored the reality that our allies phasing out fossil fuels has done little to move their economies to green energy, and instead, Europe has helped fuel Russian President Vladimir Putin’s monstrous invasion of Ukraine. Given this self-imposed dependence, enacting a full oil and gas embargo on Russia is close to impossible.

No matter, our leaders evidently believe that is Europe’s problem. On Tuesday, Trudeau outlined targets to lower carbon emissions to between 40 and 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. More specifically, the government is demanding, without saying how, the energy sector cut emissions by 42 per cent below 2019 levels.

It is a goal Trudeau laid out while dismissing Canada’s largest industry and pretending as if oil and gas companies don’t already pay taxes and don’t already face a slough of anti-energy policies.

“With record profits, this is the moment for the oil and gas sector to invest in the sustainable future that will be good for business, good for communities and good for our future,” the prime minister said.

Never mind that politicians have no business telling companies what to do with their profits. Increased corporate revenues also mean increased tax revenues. If the federal government wants to use the extra revenue it gains from the oil and gas sector during a boom period, then it is free to do so. What’s more, the federal government’s carbon tax increased to $50 per tonne on Friday and will eventually reach $170.

It’s not enough for the Liberals to collect ever-increasing tax revenues, though — they want to tell companies how to spend what’s left.

Raising the carbon tax will do little more than make life more expensive for Canadians and divert oil and gas investment to less-regulated jurisdictions. If the carbon tax were truly as effective at curbing emissions as the government claims, why did it feel the need to outline a whole host of other regulatory measures to achieve the same goals? By creating the impression that Canada’s regulatory regime and tax structure are constantly in flux, the government is missing the opportunity to balance emissions reduction with economic growth.


Focusing more on developing lower-emitting natural gas and preparing for a warmer future are better uses of government resources. Besides, the energy industry has long been improving its efficiency, suggesting existing provincial and federal incentives are working as intended. Between 2011 and 2018, for example, oil sands emissions per barrel declined by 22 per cent

Trying to dictate where companies invest, as the Trudeau Liberals want to do, shows this is less about capping emissions, and more about control. The fact that the government is mandating that new vehicles sold in Canada either be hybrids or fully electric by 2035 gives away the plot.

Trudeau also said Tuesday that, “big oil lobbyists have had their time on the field,” implying that greedy energy companies have got their way and the government is finally sticking up for the little guy. This, of course, doesn’t square with policies brought in by the prime minister himself.

This is the government that cancelled Northern Gateway and introduced cumbersome regulations that encouraged the cancellation of the Energy East pipeline. It is the government that made the approval process for any energy project one of endless consultation and politicization. And, of course, it is this government that brought in the carbon tax.

No “big oil” lobbyists think this has been a success. But having a capitalist bogeymen to blame is a good way to justify doing what you were already planning to do.

Trudeau went on: “Now, it’s over to the workers and engineers who will build solutions.” The only logical reaction is to ask: really? Would those be the same workers and engineers who will struggle to find meaningful work as oil and gas investment is driven further and further away? Those workers?

It hardly needs to be said that the plan disproportionately singles out the West, and especially Alberta. Good jobs for regular people working with their hands and extracting wealth from Canada’s bounty of natural resources has long been an embarrassment to the well-to-do Central-Canadian elite.

Ontario carmakers, on the other hand, will be fine, as they will be able to produce government-mandated electric vehicles. It won’t matter whether they are economical to produce or to buy and maintain. Canadian consumers won’t have a choice.

Energy prices have indeed been much higher lately, after several years of below-normal prices. It isn’t reassuring that the federal government refuses to acknowledge why that is. If Canada, the United States and Europe hadn’t been so committed to forcing their economies off of fossil fuels, there would be less global reliance on Russian energy. Unfortunately, that is a world that the Liberal government is obviously comfortable to live in.

National Post  NP View: The Liberal plan to smother the energy industry | National Post

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carmakers dream of clean, green, mean electric machines

6 minute read
Carmakers dream of clean, green, mean electric machines
Carmakers dream of clean, green, mean electric machines
Carmakers dream of clean, green, mean electric machines

An employee at Advanced Electric Machines works on test models of a motor for an electric vehicle that does not include either rare earth magnets or copper and uses electrical steel and aluminium instead, in Washington, Britain, November 26, 2021. Picture taken November 26, 2021. REUTERS/Nick Carey

Read More
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

WASHINGTON, England, April 4 (Reuters) - An electric car is a clean car, right? If only it were so simple.

From motor magnets with toxic histories to batteries made using copious fossil-fuel power, many challenges face carmakers seeking to purge dirtier materials from their supply chains to satisfy regulators and investors.

These obstacles represent opportunities for a growing group of companies in the electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem that bet they can capitalise on that demand.

Report ad

They include Advanced Electric Machines (AEM) in northern England, which is working with Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) luxury brand Bentley and others in the auto industry to develop recyclable electric motors free of rare earth metals, which are often produced using polluting chemicals.

"Our customers need ways to ditch internal combustion engines that are cost-effective and sustainable without putting tons of this nasty rare earth stuff into their cars," CEO James Widmer said.

Report ad

The increasing scrutiny of supply chains comes as the European Union, which announced draft laws last year to enforce net-zero emissions targets, considers charging for excess carbon on imports, as well as legislation requiring ethical sourcing and a recycling plan for EV batteries.

Globally, the prospect looms of national carbon taxes that could cost lagging automakers dearly, while investors and financiers increasingly favour companies with strong environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials.

Report ad

"The focus on ESG has become more intense," said Moshiel Biton, CEO of Israeli battery technology company Addionics, which makes three-dimensional electrodes that Biton says are more efficient, making cleaner but less energy-dense battery chemistries commercially viable.

"But it's nothing compared to what's coming."

Yet it remains to be seen how many of the companies looking to tap the market for cleaning up electric cars will succeed in a rapidly evolving EV technology arena; what's cutting edge today could be obsolete tomorrow.

Given fierce competition, any projects not advanced enough at the right time will risk missing their chance, according to MacMurray Whale, environmental sustainability strategist at Cormark Securities in Toronto.

"You won't be able to attract the investor interest because there's a lot of them and they're all trying to argue they're the best," he said.


The demand is real, though, from carmakers who face a daunting task to navigate the challenges of making everything from steel to aluminium using cleaner processes, to finding less environmentally damaging battery chemistries.

"We only source new business with suppliers with a road map to net zero," said Andy Palmer, an electric vehicle pioneer who is CEO of Switch Mobility, a British-based EV maker owned by Indian commercial vehicle maker Ashok Leyland (ASOK.NS).

Switch buys credits to offset the carbon used to make metal components and factors in that cost when assessing new parts, he added.

Squeezing carbon out of the supply chain is a "vital part" of BMW's carbon-reduction strategy, sustainability vice president Thomas Becker said.

The German carmaker has negotiated with all its battery suppliers and many of its steel and aluminium suppliers that their materials are made using renewable energy, Becker told a conference in London in March.

The problem with EVs is they are so carbon intensive to make, they have to drive thousands of miles before they do less harm to the environment than a gas-guzzling saloon. read more

BMW has measured the CO2 footprint throughout its supply chain. If it took no action, its footprint per vehicle would be 18 tonnes of CO2 in 2030, versus 12 tonnes per vehicle in 2019, according to the carmaker. But its carbon reduction plans should cut that number to nine tonnes by 2030, it says.

The need for greener EVs has sent some carmakers back to the drawing board.

Pennsylvania-based engineering company Ansys (ANSS.O), which develops modelling software for various industries, has seen surging demand from carmakers seeking to simulate cars and components with greener or lighter materials, such as aluminium instead of steel, said Pepi Maksimovic, director of application engineering.

"There's an intensification of the effort to address these issues in terms of ... bringing better cleaner, greener, meaner technology to the market faster, earlier," she added.


Previous corporate sustainability efforts have often been derided as vague and as "greenwashing".

Costa Caldis, chief operating officer of supply chain tracing company SAFE, said carmakers were moving in the right direction, but not fast enough.

"Stakeholders are demanding supply chain visibility and not just statements."

Douglas Johnson-Poensgen, CEO of Circulor, which maps supply chains for the likes of BMW and Volvo (VOLCARb.ST), said financing from investors was increasingly tied to ESG targets.

"Everybody recognises they need to know where they're sourcing things from and what they're inheriting from their supply chain."

Makram Azar, CEO of London-based investment group Full Circle Capital, said companies in the auto sector that "tick all the right ESG boxes" should find raising capital easier.

"Big asset managers who have allocated huge sums of money to invest in ESG compliant companies have found there aren't enough of them," said Azar.

More carbon levies could help to change that.

Full Circle has invested in Britishvolt, a British startup that's building an EV battery plant that will run only using renewable energy.

Peter Rolton, Britishvolt's executive chairman, said national governments would need alternatives to fuel taxes that raise vast sums, and taxing carbon would help to squeeze it out of supply chains.

"Carbon taxation is an inevitable part of a 2050 net-zero vision," he added. "You can see that one coming."


AEM, based in Washington, a city with roots in northeast England's industrial history, has developed a recyclable motor for EVs using electrical steel and aluminium instead of copper and magnets, thus removing rare earth metals. CEO Widmer said AEM's motors would be cheaper than conventional ones and in carmakers' tests have been up to 15% more efficient.

As well as the environmental considerations, many carmakers and suppliers want to reduce reliance on China, which controls 90% of global rare earths metals supply. read more

China's dominance extends to graphite, crucial for anodes for EV batteries, which is typically produced using electricity from coal.

Canadian-listed mine developer NextSource (NEXT.TO) plans to start commercial production of graphite in Madagascar from 2023 to capitalise on demand from companies looking to diversify supplies.

Executive vice president Brent Nykoliation said contracts with carmakers should be lucrative and long as they seek to lock in supplies tailor-made to their requirements.

"The conversation has changed dramatically in the last 12 months," Nykoliation said, referring to carmakers' engagement with mineral production.

($1 = 0.7595 pounds)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fear mongers rail against Nuclear power plants and say how unsafe they are. I never realized how many were actually in service today in the US. So much for unsafe.


This map shows where nuclear reactors are being built and where they are shutting down

  • The future of nuclear power is being shaped both by an urgent push to decarbonize and renewed safety fears after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and capture of nuclear reactors.
  • Nuclear power generation does not cause any greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Currently, 19% of the electricity generated in the United States comes from 93 nuclear power reactors at 55 nuclear reactor sites in 28 states.

Nuclear power has been in the spotlight again lately.

The war in Ukraine and the Russian capture of the Chornobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants sent a shock wave of fear around the world. At the same time, Russia’s control over natural gas supplies to Europe, and increased recognition of the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is making nuclear power more attractive.


Nuclear power generation does not release any greenhouse gasses and is categorized as “clean” energy by the U.S Department of Energy. The United States is spending billions of dollars on nuclear power plants that are losing money because it needs that emission-free energy to meet decarbonization goals.

Nuclear power plants generate 19% of the electricity in the U.S., according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. (Sixty-one percent comes from fossil fuels and 20% comes from renewables.)

So where are these nuclear power plants located?

CNBC used data from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to plot where nuclear reactors are currently in operation, where they are undergoing decommissioning processes to be shut down and where licenses have been granted for new reactors.

There are 93 commercial nuclear reactors operating in the United States at 55 locations in 28 states. The majority of nuclear reactors are in the eastern portion of the U.S.


Currently, 25 reactors are in some phase of decommissioning.

There are also licenses approved for another eight nuclear reactors to be constructed in the U.S. However, only two of those reactors, units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, are currently under construction, according to Scott Burnell, a spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Other companies hold the licenses to begin construction “but none of them have made the business decision to move forward,” Burnell said. The license doesn’t expire, though, so “as long as the supporting information remains valid, the construction authorization is good to go,” Burnell told CNBC.

Nuclear power is highly subject to local political sentiments.

In California, for example, strong anti-nuclear sentiment played a part in the decommissioning of the last operational nuclear power reactor in the state, Diablo Canyon.

In Illinois, by contrast, the state legislature voted to spend as much as $694 million to keep nuclear reactors open.

Another lingering and prominent issue for nuclear power is the lack of a permanent waste disposal solution. Nuclear power generation results in dangerous, radioactive waste. The scientific consensus is that nuclear waste should be stored deep in the ground where it can remain and, over many thousands of years, lose its radioactivity.

In the United States, there is no permanent nuclear waste disposal. Nuclear waste sits in dry casks at locations of current and former nuclear reactors. A mine at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was the closest the U.S. got to permanent disposal for nuclear waste, but the location was shut down, due in large part to the influence of Harry Reid, a Democratic senator from the state. Start-ups are working on several other possible solutions, including sliding long, thin canisters of nuclear waste deep into boreholes in the ground.

 — Map created by Crystal Mercedes.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unintended consequences of banning gas-powered cars


  • Calgary Herald
  • 5 Apr 2022
img?regionKey=sl1W6vneUYkbMhWW1%2fhL9w%3d%3dTONY CALDWELL / POSTMEDIA NEWS FILES Canada won't be the first country to ban gas-powered cars by 2035. Japan, Chile, China, the U.K. and others have already pledged to do so.

For the average Canadian, one of the most potent planks of the federal government's newly released Emissions Reduction Plan was a 2035 pledge to ban all sales of private vehicles running on internal combustion engines (ICE). While there will be exceptions for semi-trucks and agricultural vehicles, in just 13 years it will become illegal to purchase a new car or truck powered by gasoline or diesel. The idea, of course, is to curb Canadian emissions by dramatically decreasing consumer demand for motor fuel. But there is good reason to believe that this policy won't necessarily have the effect that Ottawa intends. The National Post's Tristin Hopper explains how the Liberal government's plan to ban internal combustion engines may not have the effect that they're intending. MOST CANADIANS MIGHT BE DRIVING EVS BY 2035 ANYWAY

Zero-emissions vehicles are still a small component of Canadian new car sales. In 2020, just 3.5 per cent of new vehicles registered in Canada were zero emission.

But worldwide sales are growing so fast that it's not unreasonable to assume that EVS could come to dominate Canadian car lots by 2035. In 2019, electric vehicles were 2.6 per cent of new car sales, rising to 4.3 per cent in 2020 and 7.2 per cent in the first six months of 2021.

Sarah Hastings-simon, a University of Calgary researcher on energy transitions, told the National Post that “the current pace of growth would see 100% share being reached much sooner than 2035.”

Ottawa's 2035 ban would apply only to new car sales; any internal combustion vehicle already on the road would get grandfathered in. Rebekah Young, an auto market analyst with Scotiabank, told the National Post that by her calculations, in the immediate years after the ban up to 50 cent of the Canadian vehicle fleet could remain powered by fossil fuels.

“The large stock of vehicles on the road now — with increasingly longer lifespans over the past few years as manufacturing has improved — means it will be many years before EVS replace the stock of ICE vehicles on Canadian roads in a meaningful way,” she said.

Also, banning gas-powered cars by 2035 isn't a particularly original thought by Ottawa. Japan, Chile, China, South Korea, the U.K. and others have already pledged to ban or severely restrict EV sales by 2035.

In Norway, which shares the long distances and cold weather wellknown to Canadian motorists, electric vehicles are already representing more than 80 per cent of new sales.

This is the one of the main reasons that the federal government's 2035 ban didn't spur all that much panic among investors or the auto sector.

Most carmakers were already operating from the assumption that they would primarily be cranking out electric cars by the mid-2030s.



There are about 12,000 gas stations across Canada, ranging from massive Southern Ontario truck stops to mom-and-pop filling stations strewn along the Alaska Highway.

As per Natural Resources Canada, the country has 6,800 charging stations. While that sounds comparable, keep in mind that most charging stations only have two or three ports, and that a “fill-up” can take between 20 and 40 minutes.

For now, the average EV driver is disproportionately likely to live in a detached home that they can rig up with a 240-volt charging station. But if EVS are going to represent 100 per cent of all sales in 13 years, they're increasingly going to need to be owned by Canadians who live in condos or apartments.

Any resident of the Canadian prairies is used to the wintertime sight of extension cords haphazardly strung overtop sidewalks in order to charge the block heater of a vehicle parked on the street; those owners would presumably have a similar problem rigging up a reliable place to charge their EV.

The other issue is that this is all happening without any apparent plans to ramp up Canadian electricity production.

California, which has enacted a similar 2035 ban on internal combustion engines, is already experiencing acute electricity shortages that are forcing the state to lean on oilfired power plants in order to avoid the need for rolling blackouts.


We're actually in the midst of a historically steep spike in the price of used cars. Covid-related supply chain shortages (most notably semiconductors) have slowed down the production of vehicles so sharply that if you own a 2018 car with fewer than 100,000 kilometres, you can probably flip it at close to 85 per cent of the sticker price.

Normally, you'd be lucky to get 50 per cent.

There's no reason to believe that banning an entire category of cars wouldn't impose similar price pressures on the Canadian used vehicle market, particularly since the price of gasoline in 2035 isn't poised to be all that different than it is now.

Another huge benefit to owning an internal combustion vehicle? It's easier to fix.

While there's no telling what the next 13 years may yield, any EV owner currently looking to get their car fixed faces a deficit of qualified mechanics at best, and a Kafkaesque nightmare at worst.

Battery replacements on early-model Nissan Leafs often rival the cost of the vehicle itself, and Tesla is frequently criticized for a proprietary repair regimen that can impose five-figure maintenance bills on issues that would be considered easy third-party fixes in a conventional vehicle.

Internationally, the most glaring example of a sudden halt to a supply of new vehicles is in Cuba, where U.S. trade bans beginning in 1962 forced the country to strenuously maintain a fleet of 1950s-era cars well into the 21st century.

The effect on Canadian roads won't be nearly as dramatic, but the average 2030s car owner will likely be incentivized to pay more for extending the life of their car when it's increasingly the last of its generation.


Ten years ago, amid news that Ford was going to discontinue production of the Crown Victoria police interceptor, the Toronto Police immediately hoarded as many of the cars as they could possibly buy.

All the police cars pitched as replacements were deemed too small by the Toronto cops, so they filled up a rooftop with more than 300 Crown Victorias.

Police cars will be exempt from the 2035 ban, but as dozens of auto brands are now poised for permanent discontinuation, similar episodes of vehicle-hoarding may be about to strike the Canadian car market.

Particularly when Western governments happen to be phasing out gas-powered vehicles at the precise moment that manufacturers are churning out some of the best internal-combustion cars ever made.

“This is the absolute golden age for internal combustion cars right now,” said Caleb Bernabe, co-founded of VINN, a Canadian online marketplace for new and used vehicles.

Take the 2021 Ram TRX, branded as “the most powerful streetlegal half-ton truck to ever roam the earth.” Or the sudden spike in luxury automakers churning out absurdly high-powered vehicles with V10 and V12 engines under the hood.

Cadillac is planning to go all-electric by 2030, but just before they ditch gas, they're releasing a 700 horsepower sedan.

And while EV sales are indeed on the rise, it's clear that Canadians still love a gas-guzzler. Just last year, pickup trucks represented 25 per cent of Canadian private vehicle sales.

That year also saw a massive increase in sales of SUVS, crossovers and other hard-on-fuel vehicles.

In short, if Canadian motorists are going to be going electric by 2035, many appear to be ready to burn as much fuel as possible before that happens.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Wind energy company kills 150 eagles in US, pleads guilty
33 mins ago

Tax fraud inquiry into consultancy firms launched as French election looms
This Ready-Made Costco Dish Is The Fastest Summer Barbecue Side

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A wind energy company was sentenced to probation and ordered to pay more than $8 million in fines and restitution after at least 150 eagles were killed over the past decade at its wind farms in eight states, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

© Provided by The Canadian Press
NextEra Energy subsidiary ESI Energy pleaded guilty to three counts of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act during a Tuesday court appearance in Cheyenne, Wyoming. It was charged in the deaths of eagles at three of its wind farms in Wyoming and New Mexico.

In addition to those deaths, golden and bald eagles were killed at wind farms affiliated with ESI and NextEra since 2012 in eight states, prosecutors said: Wyoming, California, New Mexico, North Dakota, Colorado, Michigan, Arizona and Illinois. The birds are killed when they fly into the blades of wind turbines. Some ESI turbines killed multiple eagles, prosecutors said.

It's illegal to kill or harm eagles under federal law.

The bald eagle — the U.S. national symbol — was removed from protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2007, following a dramatic recovery from its widespread decimation due to harmful pesticides and other problems. Golden eagles have not fared as well, with populations considered stable but under pressure including from wind farms, collisions with vehicles, illegal shootings and poisoning from lead ammunition.

The case comes amid a push by President Joe Biden for more renewable energy from wind, solar and other sources to help reduce climate changing emissions. It also follows a renewed commitment by federal wildlife officials under Biden to enforce protections for eagles and other birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, after criminal prosecutions were halted under former President Donald Trump.

Companies historically have been able to avoid prosecution if they take steps to avoid bird deaths and seek permits for those that occur. ESI did not seek such a permit, authorities said.

The company was warned prior to building the wind farms in New Mexico and Wyoming that they would kill birds, but it proceeded anyway and at times ignored advice from federal wildlife officials about how to minimize the deaths, according to court documents.

“For more than a decade, ESI has violated (wildlife) laws, taking eagles without obtaining or even seeking the necessary permit," said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division in a statement.

ESI agreed under a plea agreement to spend up to $27 million during its five-year probationary period on measures to prevent future eagle deaths. That includes shutting down turbines at times when eagles are more likely to be present.

Despite those measures, wildlife officials anticipate that some eagles still could die. When that happens, the company will pay $29,623 per dead eagle, under the agreement.

NextEra President Rebecca Kujawa said collisions of birds with wind turbines are unavoidable accidents that should not be criminalized. She said the company is committed to reducing damage to wildlife from its projects.

“We disagree with the government's underlying enforcement activity,” Kujawa said in a statement. “Building any structure, driving any vehicle, or flying any airplane carries with it a possibility that accidental eagle and other bird collisions may occur.”

Matthew Brown, The Associated Press


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that a number of people do want us to stuff our Alberts fossil fuel.    Right into pipelines heading their way. 😃🙃


Varcoe: U.S. senator heads to oilsands as energy security concerns 'jolt' Americans

For Alberta’s energy sector, U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin will be heading to the province on Monday and Tuesday to visit oilsands operations near Fort McMurray.

He is also expected to attend a North American energy roundtable meeting in Calgary with leaders of some of the country’s largest petroleum producers and pipeline operators.

As concerns about global energy security continue to boil, the chair of the powerful U.S. Senate committee on energy and natural resources — and a key swing vote in the Senate — will tour an oilsands mine and thermal oilsands facility with Premier Jason Kenney and Energy Minister Sonya Savage.

The visit came about after the three politicians spoke by phone last month and discussed energy security and the need for a continental strategy.

“He mentioned he’d like to come up and see the oilsands, see how they do things up here, have a tour, understand the processes and understand the potential,” Savage said in an interview Friday.

“This is huge. This is the United States paying attention to energy security, it’s the United States looking north for a solution to the high price at the pumps.”

Manchin will arrive as both natural gas and oil prices are surging, with benchmark U.S. crude rates up by 30 per cent this year.

Over the past month, both the American and Canadian governments have asked domestic petroleum producers to increase output following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while the U.S. is releasing crude from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

South of the border, conversations that have been dormant for years about the security of supply are being revived, said Ben Cahill, senior fellow on energy security at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.

Manchin’s trip is “a symbol that we need to think about oil and gas as part of energy security and economic security,” Cahill said Friday.

“Going to our closest neighbour and trade partner is a sign that Canada can be part of the solution for the U.S.”

Industry leaders in Canada say getting Manchin to visit the oilsands, with the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves, is significant after the U.S. banned Russian oil imports and is looking to secure additional supplies.

“We’re in uncharted waters today and looking at the dynamics in the United States. They have record-high gasoline prices,” said Tim McMillan, CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

“They’ve been sending envoys (from) the administration to the Middle East and to Venezuela to look at how they could increase production. Joe Manchin’s visit to Alberta starts to reinforce what is probably the most logical, the most economic and the most secure form of oil for the U.S. driving public.”

Officials in Manchin’s office declined to comment on the trip.

It’s expected Kenney, Savage and Manchin will discuss North American energy integration issues. Alberta’s energy minister also hopes to talk about critical minerals and the potential to develop them in the province and become a key supplier in North America.

Inevitably, they will also discuss the failed Keystone XL cross-border oil pipeline, which was cancelled by U.S. President Joe Biden last year.

The Kenney government invested directly in the project, which was led by Calgary-based TC Energy, and has since pegged its financial losses at $1.3 billion.

The Democratic senator from West Virginia has backed Keystone XL, putting him at odds with the progressive wing of his own party and the president.

“We should have built that pipeline,” Manchin told Fox TV last month. “I still think we should build that pipeline and have that product coming from Canada, our best and friendliest neighbour.”

That’s a message that resonates with Kenney.

The likelihood of resurrecting KXL seems minuscule, however, given the political polarization surrounding the project and Biden’s cancelling of its permits over climate concerns and greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands.

And TC Energy CEO Francois Poirier appears to have as much interest in resuscitating the pipeline — first proposed in 2008 — as getting poison ivy.

“On Keystone XL, we’ve turned the page and we’re not interested in reviving that,” Poirier said Wednesday at an investment forum.

“And I don’t think President Biden is interested in reviving that either, based on recent comments he made publicly. We’ve moved on.”

However, Keystone XL doesn’t need to dominate the discussion.

There are other pipelines, smaller projects and other infrastructure that can bolster energy trade between the countries. Battles over the Line 3 and Line 5 projects are also continuing.

In January, Canada shipped almost 4.6 million barrels per day of oil and other petroleum products into the U.S., about 56 per cent of all imports. And the U.S. supplied two-thirds of Canada’s oil imports last year.

Industry expert Greg Stringham, CAPP’s former vice-president of oilsands, has met several times with the veteran senator and noted Canadian officials have been trying for years to get Manchin north to see the oilsands.

“This is a really strong signal that he’s trying to accelerate the understanding of Canada-U.S. energy relations from his perceptive within his own party,” Stringham said.

The challenge for Canada is ensuring additional exports of oil are from lower-emissions barrels, said Cahill, noting there’s little awareness in the U.S. of what Canadian producers are doing to reduce the carbon intensity from the oilsands.

On the flip side, there is a new opportunity to talk about increasing oil and gas shipments from Alberta.

“The whole U.S. has been jolted into thinking about energy security again,” Cahill said.

“It’s created more openness to importing more volumes from Canada. It’s kind of opened up new possibilities.”

Chris Varcoe is a Calgary Herald columnist.



  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if everyone in Ontario (for instance) were to go out this month and buy an electric vehicle, the Power grid would be brought to its knees just like in 2003.  Our current power infrastructure cannot even handle a hot day in July without brown outs.  Now add 14 million electric cars all soaking up their share of electrons.  Ain't gonna happen.  It would kill the grid.

Until the government spends the necessary money to improve the power grid and ensure a substantial reserve, electric cars will remain niche in the near term.

Our reliance on oil will continue for decades.  Even electric cars need oil anyway, lots of plastic there.

As for shipping oil to Europe.  There is no worry there because we can't even ship oil to our own east coast. 

The priorities of this government are misguided for sure.

  • Thanks 3
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.

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.


  • Create New...