Jump to content

Sorry Albertans, stuff your fossil fuel


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Trudeau's hypocrisy on foreign funding 

Foreign entities have spent $1.28 billion on anti-Alberta energy campaigns and Trudeau has remained silent

Liberals made a huge fuss when some right-wing American groups and individuals financially supported the Freedom Convoy and imposed the Emergencies Act, which treated the protesters as if they were insurrectionists.

 

That overreach is in stark contrast to the indifference shown toward the revelations last summer that, between 2003 and 2019, a collection of foreign entities spent $1.28 billion on “Canadian-based environmental initiatives,” which included work to impede Canadian energy development.

 

Roughly two-thirds of the money was earmarked for Canadian environmental organizations and the rest went to “Canadian-based environmental initiatives” in the United States, according to research compiled by the Alberta government’s Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns.

 

The public inquiry’s commissioner, J. Stephens Allan, defined anti-Alberta energy campaigns as: “attempts to directly or indirectly delay or frustrate the timely, economic, efficient and responsible development of Alberta’s oil and gas resources and the transportation of those resources to commercial markets, by any means, which may include, by the dissemination of misleading or false information.”

 

In essence, this investigation exposed a massive American movement to purposely impair Canada’s most important export industry. The inquiry spent $3.5 million and over two years following the money by examining the tax returns, revenues, deductions, grants and data from U.S. foundations and Canadian environmental organizations.

 

In response to evidence of a massive anti-Canadian effort on the part of left-wing Americans, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was so quick to try to cut off American funding of the truckers, remained silent. But to many Canadians, such foreign meddling is unacceptable, as is the fact that the Canadian entities that received millions in foreign funds are not required to publicly disclose the source of their funding.

As Mac Van Wielingen, founder of ARC Resources and a prominent philanthropist and investor in Calgary, said in an interview last week: “Undisclosed private funding of activism is the problem. That’s the essence and foreign funding is the worst example. How and who is funding them?”

Imagine if Americans undertook an equally massive campaign against Ontario’s auto industry, Quebec’s hydro-electric exports, Atlantic Canada’s fisheries or Canada’s agricultural sector.

 

The inquiry’s figures also show direct federal government involvement in damaging the energy industry in Canada. Between 2004 and 2019, a total of over $414 million in federal funds was given to 26 environmental organizations, many of which were directly involved in anti-energy campaigns. Only $41 million of this was handed out before Trudeau’s election in 2015.

 

Another concern is Russia, which was not raised by Alberta’s inquiry, but has long been accused of funding anti-energy campaigns in the United States, specifically anti-fracking campaigns, to ensure it continues to hold its monopolistic position in the European energy market.

 

Given that Canada is America’s largest oil and gas supplier, and the oilsands represents the third-biggest deposit of oil in the world, was Russian money earmarked to strand Canada’s oilsands?

https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-trudeaus-hypocrisy-on-foreign-funding?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NP Platformed newsletter 2022-06-07&utm_term=NP_Comments

Financial Post

 

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

After effectively shutting down the oil and gas sector, and the investments that go along with it…..the government is now wondering where the skilled workers went?? (They got tired of waiting for the “just transition”).

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No more 'Pariah' state as Biden seeks help from the Saudis as gas prices skyrocket

Too bad there wasn't a nearby allied and stable country with abundant supplies, environmentally friendly extraction methods, and a pipeline to transport it with less impact on the planet eh? 

Arabs have long memories and a slightly different definition of the word "friend" than Joe seems to. Help will be forthcoming... but it will come at a cost. 

So, does the position of the original poster still resonate with the 70 percenters who applauded the sentiment? If it doesn't, you don't have the gas for Paris Accord targets. The road work needs to be done before fight day... not after:

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

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Even better, let's get the e-vehicle owners to pay for their environmental impact in the same way that we are demanding that fossil fuel vehicle owners pay for their's.

Carbon tax for ICE vehicles?  Fine, where's the carbon tax for the production of the batteries for the electric vehicles?  Where's the tax for mining the lithium?  Where's the carbon tax on mining the copper?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

“ So, to sum up the current energy conundrum: Western Europe became increasingly dependent on Russian natural gas because they deemed it preferable to fracked gas from North America.

In the scramble to displace Russian gas, U.S. gas producers diverted supplies from China to Europe. China responded by replacing gas with high-carbon coal, ramping up domestic production and importing more low-quality coal from Indonesia and Mongolia.

Germany, meanwhile, is shuttering low-carbon nuclear plants and restarting idled coal plants as Russia cuts off its supply of gas. Joe Biden is set to visit Saudi Arabia – a country he labelled a “pariah” state – to appeal for increases to oil production to help drive down crude prices.

This complicated web of tradeoffs and unintended consequences – this existential dilemma – could be best summarized by philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, who wrote: “If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or do not marry, you will regret both “

‘Comment in the Globe and Mail

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jaydee said:

This complicated web of tradeoffs and unintended consequences

Perhaps I'm a bit less kind in the assessment.

Not addressing vulnerabilities (and trapping them) doesn't qualify as an unintended consequence, it's wilful complacency and it speaks to a lack of attention to detail and situational awareness.

Not addressing those vulnerabilities in a world that is seeking them out for nefarious purposes is like only practising things you're already good at.  

Soldier 101 suggests that It's your vulnerabilities that will come under fire and be leveraged against you. The worst of those traps are the ones you set for yourself.

Sole sourcing essential commodities from potentially hostile trading partners is nothing short of foolish. It begs the WTFDYTWGTH question.

If the media weren't so compliant and the opposition not so incompetent, someone might have been warning against this (as Trump did) years ago.

It's not an unintended consequence if there was no other possible outcome.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard on the news today that Alberta is now awash in money, over a billion dollars in the black due to high oil prices.

Tell me again how Putin's responsible for high gas prices. Someone is making a lot of money from these high prices, and it's not me or you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mo32a said:

I heard on the news today that Alberta is now awash in money, over a billion dollars in the black due to high oil prices.

Tell me again how Putin's responsible for high gas prices. Someone is making a lot of money from these high prices, and it's not me or you.

Oil being the cyclical and capital-intensive industry that it is makes me a little more accepting of those dastardly oil companies making some profit now.  I save my anger for the governments glee-fully raking in the tax dollars to spend in ways I would never condone while pleading the whole thing is out of their hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mo32a said:

I heard on the news today that Alberta is now awash in money, over a billion dollars in the black due to high oil prices.

Tell me again how Putin's responsible for high gas prices. Someone is making a lot of money from these high prices, and it's not me or you.

The money you say is awash in Alberta results from tax collection from the oil companies based on a formula that has been in existence for a number of years. Alberta taxes have nothing to do with the increased price of oil and in fact Alberta dropped it own tax on vehicle fuel.

Quote

Alberta's gas tax break extended to end of September at least

Author of the article:
Lisa Johnson
Publishing date:
Jun 22, 2022  •  6 days ago  •  3 minute read  •   Join the conversation
 

A service station in North Vancouver sells gas at more than $2 a litre. It's the first time that gasoline in a major Canadian market has ever cracked the $2 mark. A service station in North Vancouver sells gas at more than $2 a litre. It's the first time that gasoline in a major Canadian market has ever cracked the $2 mark. PHOTO BY TAEHOON KIM/BLOOMBERG

Article content

Alberta’s UCP government is extending its 13-cents-per-litre gas tax holiday for at least another three months.

Article content

 

It comes after news the inflation rate in the province ramped up to 7.1 per cent in May, hitting 7.7 per cent across the country, driven by high gasoline prices.

 

In a Wednesday news release, Premier Jason Kenney noted that while those prices across Canada continue to climb, Albertans still pay much less than neighbouring provinces.

 

“We’re helping Albertans save money through the fuel tax relief program at a time of need,” he said.

 

While prices at the pump are not as high as in Saskatchewan or British Columbia, where it’s well above $2 per litre, Natural Resources Canada marked the retail price of regular gas Wednesday afternoon at 188.2 cents per litre in Edmonton, and 191.9 cents in Calgary.

 

That’s still higher than before the gas tax relief was first rolled out on April 1. On March 31, the retail price of regular gas sat at 164.2 cents per litre in Edmonton and 167.9 cents per litre in Calgary.

Article content

 

The Alberta government estimated Wednesday that with the corresponding reduction in GST, the gas tax relief amounts to total savings of about $6.80 per tank for a compact car, or $18.50 for a large pickup truck.

 

The government will take a second look at the program in September, reinstating the fuel tax only if the average price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil falls below $90 per barrel. For the four-week period ending June 15, WTI averaged $115.88 per barrel.

 

The UCP government has also called on Ottawa to axe the consumer carbon tax and the federal fuel tax while WTI remains above $90 per barrel to help address the high costs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

EDITORIAL: The great reset is back to fossil fuels

Postmedia News - 47m ago
 
© Provided by Toronto SunFinance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speak to the media before delivering the 2022-23 budget, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, April 7, 2022.

Claims by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland that the global energy crisis is a reason to move to so-called “green” energy faster, are out of touch with reality.

In fact, the “great reset” going on all over the world right now is heading in the opposite direction — back to fossil fuels.

Lawyer and energy blogger Andrew Roman has accurately described it as “The Great U-Turn”.

It’s happening because wind and solar power are too unreliable and too inefficient to power modern industrialized countries.

Much of Europe — led by Germany — abandoned domestic energy security in the mad rush to go green, leaving the continent vulnerable to the whims of dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin.

European nations are now in the conflicted position of arming Ukraine to fight Putin’s invasion, while simultaneously financing Putin’s invasion because they are so desperate for Russia’s natural gas and oil.

Because their leaders foolishly ignored domestic energy security, Europeans are now vulnerable to the twin dangers of skyrocketing energy prices and severe energy shortages this winter, if Putin decides to turn the screws on Europe’s energy supply,

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ ostensible goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 — less than eight years from now — and to net zero by 2050, is a fantasy.

Global emissions last year were the highest in history, surpassing the drop in emissions during the first year of the pandemic in 2020.

When it comes to Canada’s energy supply, things are not that desperate, yet.

But it’s alarming that Trudeau and Freeland are doubling down on green propaganda and the foolish argument that renewable energy sources, given their current level of technology, are anywhere near ready to replace fossil fuels, especially in a big, cold, northern, sparsely-populated country like Canada.

Canada could be a global leader in sensible energy policies because we have huge domestic reserves of natural gas and safe nuclear technology.

Because nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases and natural gas burns at half the carbon intensity of coal, using them to replace coal-fired electricity globally is the single most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But first, our energy policy would have to make sense. Under Trudeau and Freeland, it doesn’t.


 

image.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some French companies, including one of the world's largest tire manufacturers, are converting their gas boilers to run on oil in case Russia cuts off their supply

Quote
  • Some French companies are converting their gas boilers to run on oil amid Russian gas supply fears.
  • French tire manufacturer Michelin says its boilers can now run on oil, as well as gas.
  • A French minister said on Sunday that Putin is "likely" to end the supply of gas to Europe.

Some French companies are turning to oil to power their business operations amid fears Russia will end its natural gas supply to Europe.

Reuters reported the news.

The CEO of Michelin, one of the world's biggest tire manufacturers, said at a forum over the weekend that the company had converted its boilers to ensure they are capable of running on oil as well as gas.

"We can even switch to coal if we need to," Florent Menegaux, the CEO of Michelin, said at Les Rencontres Économiques forum in the south of France. "The aim is to avoid having to shut down a plant in case we face a shortage."

French Companies Switch Gas Boilers to Oil in Case Russia Cuts Supply (businessinsider.com)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An epiphany from the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources. He seems to think it's an enlightened assessment...

Pretty frightening IMO, this goes way beyond WTFDYTWGTH and is firmly entrenched in the "no other possible outcome file." If you don't see sole sourcing essential energy supplies from potentially hostile trading partners as a vulnerability, then I have egg laying roosters you might be interested in buying. 

And, if your counter argument is "no one could have predicted the invasion of Ukraine" then your job as a vulnerability assessment officer is hereby terminated.

I remember when Trump was roasted in the media for a much less ominous assessment. Where have all those liberals gone... I hear crickets in place of their noise. If you were to explain this situation to a child, they would reach the same conclusion:

 He said the energy security implications for Europeans dependent on Russian oil and gas are potentially devastating — “not just a matter of inconvenience or even a crunch with respect to affordability and pocketbook (but) a fundamental threat to their ability to provide the basics for their citizens — from heat for their homes, to fuel to transport food and goods and power to sustain their industries, jobs and economies.”

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

https://torontosun.com/news/national/canadian-food-suppliers-signal-more-price-hikes-coming

Still not high enough... not by a long shot.

The emission cost of food production is huge and we're steadily losing ground on accord targets. The carbon tax needs to go to $300/ton post haste and taxes need to be raised to prepare the national power grid for what people think they might maybe want in the way of electric vehicles. 

Agricultural exports need to be shut down and production modified to supply domestic requirements only. Time is short, this needs to have  happened yesterday. 

I'm still waiting for the plan to feed hungry people in foreign lands though... it's been a long wait and I keep asking.

7.5 years to go and still no answer to grade three questions.

 

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

Poppycock by the tonne

PM'S climate targets absolutely farcical

  • Calgary Sun
  • 24 Jul 2022
  • LORRIE GOLDSTEIN lgoldstein@postmedia.com @sunlorrie
img?regionKey=FxnZEKVpa5tq2m5qVBIuww%3d%3d  

In Ottawa, the Justin Trudeau government continues its ongoing farce of claiming Canada's greenhouse gas emissions can be lowered by 40% to 45% compared to

2005 levels by 2030.

In the latest development, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault told

CBC Radio's The House that Canada's oil and gas sector may be given more time to achieve the government's target of reducing its emissions to at least 42% below 2005 levels by 2030.

He appeared to suggest the new date would be

2032, but that's absurd.

For the oil and gas sector — which generates the most emissions of any sector of the Canadian economy — to meet the prime minister's 2030 target, it would have to reduce its annual emissions in 2019 by at least 85.5 million tonnes and ideally by 93.5 million tonnes in less than eight years.

A spokesperson for

95% of Canada's oilsands production told the

CBC it's working to reduce its emissions by 22 million tonnes by

2030 and extending the deadline to 2032 might add another two to three million tonnes of cuts.

If the oil and gas sector — which generated 203.5 million tonnes of Canada's emissions in 2019 or 27.6% of total emissions of 738 million tonnes — isn't going to meet its 2030 target, then Canada isn't going to meet Trudeau's 2030 target.

Guilbeault said the government can provide the oil and gas sector with greater flexibility while “ensuring that Canada still meets its 2030 goals.”

But the only way that could happen, in theory, would be to increase emission cuts for 2030 by the six other major sectors of the economy.

Those are transportation at 185.5 million tonnes of emissions or 25.1% of total emissions in 2019; buildings at 92 million tonnes (12.5%); heavy industry at 77.4 million tonnes (10.5%); agriculture at 66.7 million tonnes (9%); electricity at 61.8 million tonnes (8.4%); and waste and others at

51.5 million tonnes (7%).

But again, all of the Trudeau government's targets are nonsense, including its 2050 pledge of net-zero emissions since its based on projects that haven't started and technologies that haven't been invented.

That's true of every target Liberal and conservative governments have set to reduce emissions for 34 years, not one of which was ever met.

Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government set the first one in 1988, then a different one in 1990, followed by Jean Chretien's Liberal government setting a new target in 1993, followed by more targets by

Liberal and Conservative governments in 1997, 2010, 2015, 2016 and 2021.

When Chretien signed the Kyoto accord in 1997, the Liberals knew they couldn't hit the target they'd set (an average of 6% below 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012), according to a top political aide at the time.

In April, federal data showed the Trudeau government missed its 2020 target to cut emissions by 57 million tonnes in the first year of the pandemic, the equivalent of all emissions from Canada's electricity sector that year.

In that case, not even the global economic downturn caused by the pandemic did enough economic damage for Trudeau to reach his 2020 target.

Using more reliable data from 2019, when emissions were consistent with historical norms, Trudeau missed his 2020 target by 123 million tonnes — the equivalent of almost all emissions from the agricultural and electricity sectors that year.

The only difference from past practice today is that ever since 2019, when Trudeau imposed his national carbon price, Canadians have been paying for the federal government's missed reduction targets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the price you pay when your  federal government aids and abets terminating of 16 of 17 LNG projects that would have made Canada the world’s #1 LNG suppliers

 

“ The United States became the world’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter during the first half of 2022, according to data from CEDIGAZ. Compared with the second half of 2021, U.S. LNG exports increased by 12% in the first half of 2022, averaging 11.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). U.S. LNG exports continued to grow for three reasons—increased LNG export capacity, increased international natural gas and LNG prices, and increased global demand, particularly in Europe.”

 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53159&src=email#

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-warning-for-canada

Since none of us (countries or individuals) can predict the future, we should concentrate on mitigating vulnerabilities and voting on sound policy that, as a minimum, makes sense to a ten year old.

Did any one in Germany think to ask what if questions? Like, what if the wind doesn't blow, what if it's a cloudy day? What if both happen at the same time?

And above all, what if adversarial trading partners become... well, adversarial?

In hindsight, the fact that Trump would be criticized and ridiculed for pointing out these obvious vulnerabilities seems like the very definition of gobsmacking now. 

Maybe there's a shortage of ten year olds in Germany eh?

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

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/smile-city-photo-radars-capture-54200-speeders

Driving the speed limit is an important energy conservation / fuel saving technique, it's easy to do and across the board it has a huge effect on emissions.

We're off to a slow start, there's lots of catching up to do and It's about time people started getting what they voted for. 

Pull out your wallet, pay your bills and stop whimpering about the cost of getting what you wanted.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Canada’s energy battleground moves east

107050038-1650598552193-gettyimages-1237

Mon Aug 08, 2022 - The Peak

Big battles over energy policy aren’t just for Western Canada anymore. Environmental groups are gearing up to fight plans to build new energy infrastructure on the East Coast that would export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Canada to Europe.

What happened: Major environmental campaigners, including the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, launched the “StopTheGas” coalition last week to oppose LNG projects on the East Coast. 

  •     Energy companies have eyed projects that would ship Western Canadian gas to Europe from the East Coast for many years, but the recent jump in natural gas prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has suddenly made the opportunity more attractive.
  •     Two East Coast projects are likely to become the focus of campaigners on both sides of the issue: an LNG facility in New Brunswick owned by the Spanish energy multinational Repsol and a proposal by Calgary-based Pieridae Energy to build a new LNG plant in Nova Scotia.

Why it matters: East Coast LNG infrastructure is poised to become the next big fault line in the ongoing battle over Canadian energy policy.

  •     Last week Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said Canada has “a political responsibility” to ship LNG to Europe and that the federal government would work with industry to build infrastructure on the East Coast to make that possible.
  •     But environmental groups argue that increasing LNG exports will blow any chance Canada has of hitting targets to reduce emissions and that the projects can’t be built in time to help Europe anyway.

What’s next: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz will visit Canada later this month, and Canadian LNG will be top of the agenda. The German government is anxious to find new sources of gas and break its dependency on Russian energy before winter when demand and prices will likely rise even more.

  • Thanks 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...