Brad Wall's still blowing smoke on climate change

[mentalfloss]

Brad Wall's still blowing smoke on climate change

Three examples illustrate how Premier Wall’s ideas run counter to Canada’s interests.

First, his proposal that Saskatchewan (and by extension Canada) should get credit for exports of uranium is plagued by inconsistencies. It ignores the fact that the countries to which we export energy have their own commitments to reduce carbon pollution. If they choose to use uranium from Canada to meet those commitments, that doesn’t absolve Canada from its commitments.

The proposal also fails to mention the carbon pollution that Canada exports through oil, gas and coal — an amount roughly equal to the country’s domestic total. If Premier Wall believes Canada should receive credit for uranium exports, does he also support debits for those fossil fuel exports?

The second fallacy in Brad Wall’s solution set — and potentially the most damaging — is the idea that Canada should withdraw its $2.65 billion in climate financing to poorer countries.

That money is intended to help those countries adapt to climate change and leapfrog to cleaner energy systems, and should be viewed as one of Canada’s moral obligations. The world’s developing countries are the ones least responsible for climate change, yet they will be the ones affected most and have the most modest means to deal with the impacts. International climate financing is a central tool for wealthy countries — Canada included — to acknowledge and begin to address that wrong.

Shifting to a domestic front, Premier Wall insists on confusing the important debate about carbon pricing. Despite overwhelming evidence that carbon pricing accelerates the shift to zero-carbon energy sources while supporting a strong economy, he argues to the contrary and misrepresents numerous carbon-pricing supporters (the Pembina Institute included) in the process. Whether through carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems, carbon pricing should be an important plank in effective climate change plans.

Thankfully, the federal government and a growing number of provinces representing more than 80 per cent of Canadians — including Ontario, Québec, Alberta and B.C. — have moved past the yes-or-no debate on carbon pricing, and are focused on more important issues such as how to invest the revenue. Getting those decisions right will help provinces target their specific opportunities and challenges, and strengthen overall provincial and national efforts to fight climate change.

https://ipolitics.ca/2016/10/28/brad-walls-still-blowing-smoke-on-climate-change/

 

[petros]

Brad Wall's still blowing smoke on climate change

Three examples illustrate how Premier Wall’s ideas run counter to Canada’s interests.

First, his proposal that Saskatchewan (and by extension Canada) should get credit for exports of uranium is plagued by inconsistencies. It ignores the fact that the countries to which we export energy have their own commitments to reduce carbon pollution. If they choose to use uranium from Canada to meet those commitments, that doesn’t absolve Canada from its commitments.

The proposal also fails to mention the carbon pollution that Canada exports through oil, gas and coal — an amount roughly equal to the country’s domestic total. If Premier Wall believes Canada should receive credit for uranium exports, does he also support debits for those fossil fuel exports?

The second fallacy in Brad Wall’s solution set — and potentially the most damaging — is the idea that Canada should withdraw its $2.65 billion in climate financing to poorer countries.

That money is intended to help those countries adapt to climate change and leapfrog to cleaner energy systems, and should be viewed as one of Canada’s moral obligations. The world’s developing countries are the ones least responsible for climate change, yet they will be the ones affected most and have the most modest means to deal with the impacts. International climate financing is a central tool for wealthy countries — Canada included — to acknowledge and begin to address that wrong.

Shifting to a domestic front, Premier Wall insists on confusing the important debate about carbon pricing. Despite overwhelming evidence that carbon pricing accelerates the shift to zero-carbon energy sources while supporting a strong economy, he argues to the contrary and misrepresents numerous carbon-pricing supporters (the Pembina Institute included) in the process. Whether through carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems, carbon pricing should be an important plank in effective climate change plans.

Thankfully, the federal government and a growing number of provinces representing more than 80 per cent of Canadians — including Ontario, Québec, Alberta and B.C. — have moved past the yes-or-no debate on carbon pricing, and are focused on more important issues such as how to invest the revenue. Getting those decisions right will help provinces target their specific opportunities and challenges, and strengthen overall provincial and national efforts to fight climate change.

https://ipolitics.ca/2016/10/28/brad-walls-still-blowing-smoke-on-climate-change/

Trudeau threw emission cuts out the door with just one LNG plant approval.

Trans Mtn gets approved next as does Energy East and AB and SK start pumping more oil than ever.

No cuts there.

 

[pgs]

So ipolitics.ca is your go to source for political opinion .

 

[DaSleeper]

 

[captain morgan]

Brad Wall's still blowing smoke on climate change

Thank goodness that Brad Wall has all his carbon credits paid-up.... All that ghg and carbon laden smoke an all

 

[taxslave]

Brad Wall's still blowing smoke on climate change

Three examples illustrate how Premier Wall’s ideas run counter to Canada’s interests.

First, his proposal that Saskatchewan (and by extension Canada) should get credit for exports of uranium is plagued by inconsistencies. It ignores the fact that the countries to which we export energy have their own commitments to reduce carbon pollution. If they choose to use uranium from Canada to meet those commitments, that doesn’t absolve Canada from its commitments.

The proposal also fails to mention the carbon pollution that Canada exports through oil, gas and coal — an amount roughly equal to the country’s domestic total. If Premier Wall believes Canada should receive credit for uranium exports, does he also support debits for those fossil fuel exports?

The second fallacy in Brad Wall’s solution set — and potentially the most damaging — is the idea that Canada should withdraw its $2.65 billion in climate financing to poorer countries.

That money is intended to help those countries adapt to climate change and leapfrog to cleaner energy systems, and should be viewed as one of Canada’s moral obligations. The world’s developing countries are the ones least responsible for climate change, yet they will be the ones affected most and have the most modest means to deal with the impacts. International climate financing is a central tool for wealthy countries — Canada included — to acknowledge and begin to address that wrong.

Shifting to a domestic front, Premier Wall insists on confusing the important debate about carbon pricing. Despite overwhelming evidence that carbon pricing accelerates the shift to zero-carbon energy sources while supporting a strong economy, he argues to the contrary and misrepresents numerous carbon-pricing supporters (the Pembina Institute included) in the process. Whether through carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems, carbon pricing should be an important plank in effective climate change plans.

Thankfully, the federal government and a growing number of provinces representing more than 80 per cent of Canadians — including Ontario, Québec, Alberta and B.C. — have moved past the yes-or-no debate on carbon pricing, and are focused on more important issues such as how to invest the revenue. Getting those decisions right will help provinces target their specific opportunities and challenges, and strengthen overall provincial and national efforts to fight climate change.

https://ipolitics.ca/2016/10/28/brad-walls-still-blowing-smoke-on-climate-change/

So far Brad Wall is about the only Premier standing up for Canadians against the drivel from the left.

 

[Jinentonix]

The article is a load of horse****.

Thankfully, the federal government and a growing number of provinces representing more than 80 per cent of Canadians — including Ontario, Québec, Alberta and B.C. — have moved past the yes-or-no debate on carbon pricing

What f*cking debate? All I remember is having this bullsh*t shoved down our throats while the motherf*ckers lie about how beneficial it is to Canada.

That money is intended to help those countries adapt to climate change and leapfrog to cleaner energy systems, and should be viewed as one of Canada’s moral obligations. The world’s developing countries are the ones least responsible for climate change, yet they will be the ones affected most and have the most modest means to deal with the impacts. International climate financing is a central tool for wealthy countries — Canada included — to acknowledge and begin to address that wrong.

Another load of ideological crap. After ENRON, Western govts enacted strong investor protection laws. Those laws state, in part, that publicly traded companies must do everything they can to ensure profits for their shareholders. Companies that shipped their production and manufacturing overseas were merely obeying the law. So basically, we're being forced to pay for climate change strategy bullsh*t in the West and all the developing countries too. To put it bluntly, greedy leftard govts are using carbon pricing and taxes as a cash cow while punishing the taxpayer for the concept of globalization that they've been pushing.
As for Canada's obligation, go f*ck your hat. If there is any obligation in mitigating so-called man made climate change it's in our own countries. The Canadian taxpayer is NOT responsible for what happens in other countries just because govts pushed for this gobalization sh*t. And the biggest problem is, none of this crap is revenue neutral, despite the fact that just about every economics expert has stated that carbon taxes and pricing must be revenue neutral. But Liberals don't believe in neutral revenue because the egotitical f*cks think they can spend your money more efficiently than you can. But just about every leftard govt in Canada has amply proven they can't.

 

[MHz]

Somewhat related is the methane issue that is being promoted as a green-house gas that is more dangerous than CO2 as far as warming goes. CO2 does not damage the red blood cells in a person like methane does. The cell never gets repaired and that is the cell that gets 02 from your lungs to your brain and muscles so it might be considered to be somewhat important.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1136667/

 

[Jinentonix]

Somewhat related is the methane issue that is being promoted as a green-house gas that is more dangerous than CO2 as far as warming goes. CO2 does not damage the red blood cells in a person like methane does. The cell never gets repaired and that is the cell that gets 02 from your lungs to your brain and muscles so it might be considered to be somewhat important.

Climate change occurs whether we're here or not. I don't know where the leftards get the idea that the Earth has always had a relatively stable climate. Hell, even during the 250,000 years that we've been around humans have had to deal with large shifts in the climate, none of which were directly human caused.

 

[Johnnny]

Climate change occurs whether we're here or not. I don't know where the leftards get the idea that the Earth has always had a relatively stable climate. Hell, even during the 250,000 years that we've been around humans have had to deal with large shifts in the climate, none of which were directly human caused.

Because ice core data goes back roughly 1.5 million years... When the history of the earth is 4.6 billion years old... Ok, ok that's a bit extreme lets say the start of the Precambrian era 600 million years ago, the ice core data still doesn't cover 99% of that...

Its like diagnosing a patient at the hospital when they're in the 90's, do you take the patients previous medical history to when they were only 89 or do you take into account their whole lifes medical history?

One of the most common arguments i hear is that, "Johnny there hasn't been a change in temperature like this recorded in human history!", and i say "Yes, the mini ice age". And they say "That's different" .... /face palm .... Its still a temperature change, no?

Honestly its a lost cause the majority of people out there are pretty much brain washed.. They get them young like when David Suzuki lectures kindergartens about Climate Change, etc...

Its like 1984

"They have the same philosophy, grab them when they're young and impressionable, and then stuff them so full of propaganda that they believe what ever you tell them."

 

[mentalfloss]

All this huff and it's all the usual guff.


Climate change is real.

It's primarily motivated by humans right now.

Reducing carbon emissions is a necessary requirement to remedy the problem.

Carbon pricing is the way to do that.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

All this huff and it's all the usual guff.


Climate change is real.

It's primarily motivated by humans right now.

Reducing carbon emissions is a necessary requirement to remedy the problem.

Carbon pricing is the way to do that.

What flavour of kool aid are you enjoying today? Is it cherry or grape?

 

[DaSleeper]

 

[mentalfloss]

What flavour of kool aid are you enjoying today? Is it cherry or grape?

Was that supposed to be convincing?

 

[pgs]

All this huff and it's all the usual guff.


Climate change is real.

It's primarily motivated by humans right now.

Reducing carbon emissions is a necessary requirement to remedy the problem.

Carbon pricing is the way to do that.

How is climate changing other than winter fall spring and summer . Is it getting warmer ? Will that not be a good thing in Canada ?

 

[mentalfloss]

I think we'll do quite well because of global warming but it will need to be curbed by the end of the century.

 

[DaSleeper]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XyTbPwhlw

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes I realise that the guy who said 'look outside, it's snowing' as a response to global warming, is an idiot.

 

[DaSleeper]

The kalimeraphobia is strong in this one.........

 

[pgs]

I think we'll do quite well because of global warming but it will need to be curbed by the end of the century.

Well if we will do quite well with a warmer climate ,why all the worries ?