You forgot the huge losses to the carbon credit Ponzi scheme that rapidly fell apart.
April Fools!! Here's your Carbon Tax F#ckers!!!
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
What Mulcair doesn’t mention here is Hydro dams do radically alter the ecology of a water system, and not for the better. So while it might be “cleaner,” (except for the Methane which contributes about three times more than CO2 over comparable time frames) it is not without ecological harm.
www.theguardian.com
This “Net Zero by 2035 & not 2050” push isn’t ecologically but politically motivated to again divide Canada into Us’s & Them’s voting blocks to virtue signal the “virtuous vs the backward West (& Maritimes)” leading towards the next Federal election while we ALL (some more than others) pay out for this horseshit and fall further behind financially and become further divided from being a cohesive nation with our combined 1.6% of global emissions, etc…that is a rounding error on the math of calculating China’s emissions.
This financial punishment will accomplish Zero (maybe even Net Zero) towards achieving any change in climate change or even positive optics globally.
Hydroelectric dams emit a billion tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, study finds
Impact of dams on climate change has been underestimated, researchers warn, as rotting vegetation creates 25% more methane than previously thought
No, the old math is racist. The new math is sexist.
Shit, I’m better at Racist than Sexist at this point then. I’m not sure what that’s a sign of, but it doesn’t sound good.
I'd say it's a sign of getting lucky more. How's that not good?
See, a person learns something new every day!
While the Canadian government appears to be moving ahead with its regulations to have all electricity generation in the country at net-zero emissions by 2035, Saskatchewan’s premier will be staying the course with his own plan.
Last week, the federal government released its draft proposal for net-zero regulations, with a few months to go now for the provinces to give their feedback.
But Premier Scott Moe said his government is going to stick with its own plan to get to net zero by 2050, allowing current fossil fuel infrastructure to live out its full life.
“The federal government seems to have a different timeline than what we have put forward in Saskatchewan. Fair enough, they can have whatever timeline they have, it doesn’t impact how we generate power due to the wording of the Constitution,” Moe said Friday.
SaskPower has previously said it’s not possible to get Saskatchewan to net zero in the next 12 years, and even if the province could, it would more than double people’s power bills.
www.cjme.com
“It’s unrealistic and unaffordable so we won’t be doing it,” said Moe.
The premier also repeated his government’s assertion that power generation is one of the things that is solely under provincial jurisdiction, according to the Constitution.
Moe did say there are other parts of Saskatchewan’s plan that still haven’t been figured out yet, like whether coal plants would shift to natural gas for the last 10 or 12 years of their lives.
“Understanding one of those coal-fired plants is actually outfitted with carbon capture and storage and ultimately sending that carbon to be used for advanced oil recovery,” said Moe.
When asked for his response to the federal government’s proposed plan, Moe said the real question is what’s the federal response to Saskatchewan’s plan.
“We’ve said what we’re going to do. How are they going to respond when they feel that it might be violating some ideological target that they have?” he said.
Regina Conservative MP Andrew Scheer agreed that if Saskatchewan was to be forced to abide by the federal government’s plan, it would be devastating for the province.
“Rather than take a collaborative, constructive approach with Western Canadian premiers, Justin Trudeau has once again shown that he’s going to impose an Ottawa knows best, top down, doesn’t matter who he hurts ideological agenda,” said Scheer.
Scheer said the 2050 target would be a much more realistic timeline, and if implemented federally, would be much more co-operative with provincial governments.
Last week, the federal government released its draft proposal for net-zero regulations, with a few months to go now for the provinces to give their feedback.
But Premier Scott Moe said his government is going to stick with its own plan to get to net zero by 2050, allowing current fossil fuel infrastructure to live out its full life.
“The federal government seems to have a different timeline than what we have put forward in Saskatchewan. Fair enough, they can have whatever timeline they have, it doesn’t impact how we generate power due to the wording of the Constitution,” Moe said Friday.
SaskPower has previously said it’s not possible to get Saskatchewan to net zero in the next 12 years, and even if the province could, it would more than double people’s power bills.
Moe holding ground on net-zero electricity targets
While the Canadian government appears to be moving ahead with its regulations to have all electricity generati...
www.cjme.com
The premier also repeated his government’s assertion that power generation is one of the things that is solely under provincial jurisdiction, according to the Constitution.
Moe did say there are other parts of Saskatchewan’s plan that still haven’t been figured out yet, like whether coal plants would shift to natural gas for the last 10 or 12 years of their lives.
“Understanding one of those coal-fired plants is actually outfitted with carbon capture and storage and ultimately sending that carbon to be used for advanced oil recovery,” said Moe.
When asked for his response to the federal government’s proposed plan, Moe said the real question is what’s the federal response to Saskatchewan’s plan.
“We’ve said what we’re going to do. How are they going to respond when they feel that it might be violating some ideological target that they have?” he said.
Regina Conservative MP Andrew Scheer agreed that if Saskatchewan was to be forced to abide by the federal government’s plan, it would be devastating for the province.
“Rather than take a collaborative, constructive approach with Western Canadian premiers, Justin Trudeau has once again shown that he’s going to impose an Ottawa knows best, top down, doesn’t matter who he hurts ideological agenda,” said Scheer.
Scheer said the 2050 target would be a much more realistic timeline, and if implemented federally, would be much more co-operative with provincial governments.
It makes me wonder if Trudeau and other Eco-Fascist ilk have investments in GE, Siemens, Schlumberger, AE, Pelco, Bekaert etc etc that all stand to make hundreds of $Billions from Net Zero?While the Canadian government appears to be moving ahead with its regulations to have all electricity generation in the country at net-zero emissions by 2035, Saskatchewan’s premier will be staying the course with his own plan.
Last week, the federal government released its draft proposal for net-zero regulations, with a few months to go now for the provinces to give their feedback.
But Premier Scott Moe said his government is going to stick with its own plan to get to net zero by 2050, allowing current fossil fuel infrastructure to live out its full life.
“The federal government seems to have a different timeline than what we have put forward in Saskatchewan. Fair enough, they can have whatever timeline they have, it doesn’t impact how we generate power due to the wording of the Constitution,” Moe said Friday.
SaskPower has previously said it’s not possible to get Saskatchewan to net zero in the next 12 years, and even if the province could, it would more than double people’s power bills.
“It’s unrealistic and unaffordable so we won’t be doing it,” said Moe.Moe holding ground on net-zero electricity targets
While the Canadian government appears to be moving ahead with its regulations to have all electricity generati...
The premier also repeated his government’s assertion that power generation is one of the things that is solely under provincial jurisdiction, according to the Constitution.
Moe did say there are other parts of Saskatchewan’s plan that still haven’t been figured out yet, like whether coal plants would shift to natural gas for the last 10 or 12 years of their lives.
“Understanding one of those coal-fired plants is actually outfitted with carbon capture and storage and ultimately sending that carbon to be used for advanced oil recovery,” said Moe.
When asked for his response to the federal government’s proposed plan, Moe said the real question is what’s the federal response to Saskatchewan’s plan.
“We’ve said what we’re going to do. How are they going to respond when they feel that it might be violating some ideological target that they have?” he said.
Regina Conservative MP Andrew Scheer agreed that if Saskatchewan was to be forced to abide by the federal government’s plan, it would be devastating for the province.
“Rather than take a collaborative, constructive approach with Western Canadian premiers, Justin Trudeau has once again shown that he’s going to impose an Ottawa knows best, top down, doesn’t matter who he hurts ideological agenda,” said Scheer.
Scheer said the 2050 target would be a much more realistic timeline, and if implemented federally, would be much more co-operative with provincial governments.
Who do you think is filling the Liberal war chest ?
With the unveiling of a draft of Ottawa’s new clean electricity regulations last week, the Liberals have made the opening move in a high-stakes chess game between the federal government and the provinces that could play out over the next decade and a half. But if one thing is clear, it’s that they won’t be playing by the rules.
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault says that the new regulations — which are designed to phase fossil fuels out of the power supply by mandating that generation be largely emissions-free by 2035 — are being announced 12 years before they take effect, in order to give stakeholders enough lead time. “They want to know what the rules of the games will be,” he said.
Indeed they do. Except in Ottawa, the rules of the game seem to change on a near daily basis.
apple.news
The game was supposed to be about incentivizing players to reduce their carbon emissions through a steadily increasing carbon tax. But the Liberals have since decided to add in a host of other rules, including industry-specific emissions caps for the oil and gas sector and tens of billions of dollars worth of subsidies for green special interests. And they threw in a ban on straws that don’t disintegrate in your mouth, for good measure.
The carbon tax itself was imposed, not through the traditional method of dangling gobs of money in front of cash-strapped premiers, but by forcing the provinces’ hands from on high. This resulted in a lengthy court battle between Ottawa and three provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.
The Supreme Court ultimately used the “rarely applied doctrine” of “national concern” to justify the federal government’s intrusion under the Constitution’s “peace, order and good government” (POGG) clause.
The court took pains to stress that the provinces have “autonomy” over their constitutionally entrenched powers, and that the judiciary must exercise “great caution” when finding that a matter constitutes a national concern. Nevertheless, in a 6-3 ruling, the majority threw caution to the wind.
The carbon tax isn’t actually a tax, you see, it’s merely a “regulatory charge.” And the federal government isn’t forcing a regulatory regime upon the provinces, it’s simply setting a “minimal national standard.” The provinces are still free to legislate as they see fit. So long as they further the prime minister’s goals.
Of course, it didn’t matter how limited in scope the Supreme Court ruling was. Because as we know, once you recognize that climate change is so great a concern as to justify the federal government’s intrusion into traditional areas of provincial jurisdiction, you open a Pandora’s box that can be used to justify regulating everything from electricity, to natural resources, to transportation, manufacturing and agriculture.
This time around, as one law professor told the Post, the clean electricity regulations appear to be designed to take advantage of the federal government’s powers of criminal enforcement. Best not to tempt fate by claiming that the POGG clause allows Ottawa to regulate everything under the sun, I suppose.
Especially since, when it comes to electrical generation, a plain reading of the Constitution couldn’t be more clear: “In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to … the generation and production of electrical energy.”
apple.news
The clean electricity regulations won’t come into effect until 2035. At that point, they will hit like a ton of bricks, imposing severe penalties on dirty sources of electricity. Before then, they will merely serve as a warning, of no legal force or effect.
While New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have also expressed their opposition to the regulations, the most vocal opponents have been Alberta and Saskatchewan, provinces that generate a majority of their power from fossil fuels. Notably silent is Ontario, where nearly 90 per cent of the electricity supply comes from non-emitting sources.
Quebec, which is generally a staunch defender of provincial rights, also produces most of its power from hydroelectricity, while the northern territories have been given a free pass to continue burning fossil fuels with abandon. It’s a divide-and-conquer strategy that’s sure to further alienate the Prairie provinces, but may end up having little effect on the Liberals’ electoral chances.
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault says that the new regulations — which are designed to phase fossil fuels out of the power supply by mandating that generation be largely emissions-free by 2035 — are being announced 12 years before they take effect, in order to give stakeholders enough lead time. “They want to know what the rules of the games will be,” he said.
Indeed they do. Except in Ottawa, the rules of the game seem to change on a near daily basis.
Jesse Kline: Trudeau's clean electricity regulations are a direct assault on provincial rights — National Post
What’s the point of having a federal system in the first place, if everything just ends up being dictated from Parliament Hill?
The carbon tax itself was imposed, not through the traditional method of dangling gobs of money in front of cash-strapped premiers, but by forcing the provinces’ hands from on high. This resulted in a lengthy court battle between Ottawa and three provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.
The Supreme Court ultimately used the “rarely applied doctrine” of “national concern” to justify the federal government’s intrusion under the Constitution’s “peace, order and good government” (POGG) clause.
The court took pains to stress that the provinces have “autonomy” over their constitutionally entrenched powers, and that the judiciary must exercise “great caution” when finding that a matter constitutes a national concern. Nevertheless, in a 6-3 ruling, the majority threw caution to the wind.
The carbon tax isn’t actually a tax, you see, it’s merely a “regulatory charge.” And the federal government isn’t forcing a regulatory regime upon the provinces, it’s simply setting a “minimal national standard.” The provinces are still free to legislate as they see fit. So long as they further the prime minister’s goals.
Of course, it didn’t matter how limited in scope the Supreme Court ruling was. Because as we know, once you recognize that climate change is so great a concern as to justify the federal government’s intrusion into traditional areas of provincial jurisdiction, you open a Pandora’s box that can be used to justify regulating everything from electricity, to natural resources, to transportation, manufacturing and agriculture.
This time around, as one law professor told the Post, the clean electricity regulations appear to be designed to take advantage of the federal government’s powers of criminal enforcement. Best not to tempt fate by claiming that the POGG clause allows Ottawa to regulate everything under the sun, I suppose.
Especially since, when it comes to electrical generation, a plain reading of the Constitution couldn’t be more clear: “In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to … the generation and production of electrical energy.”
Adam Pankratz: Steven Guilbeault's net-zero plan is laughably impossible — National Post
If we go the hydro route, which 22 rivers would he suggest we dam up to provide this electricity?
While New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have also expressed their opposition to the regulations, the most vocal opponents have been Alberta and Saskatchewan, provinces that generate a majority of their power from fossil fuels. Notably silent is Ontario, where nearly 90 per cent of the electricity supply comes from non-emitting sources.
Quebec, which is generally a staunch defender of provincial rights, also produces most of its power from hydroelectricity, while the northern territories have been given a free pass to continue burning fossil fuels with abandon. It’s a divide-and-conquer strategy that’s sure to further alienate the Prairie provinces, but may end up having little effect on the Liberals’ electoral chances.
The crux of the issue is that you have grids that are (fairly) net zero already or systems that are (fairly) net zero already in Quebec and Manitoba and B.C. And then Ontario, you have quite a low emission system, (and) Newfoundland and Labrador.
But then you get into New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Saskatchewan and things are very, very different.
And so you have much more emissions-intensive systems and certainly in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and to some degree in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia as well, you have systems that are not integrated with other markets. So they’re sort of electricity islands, and on those islands, there’s very little electricity generating capacity that doesn’t come from coal, natural gas.
apple.news
But then you get into New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Saskatchewan and things are very, very different.
And so you have much more emissions-intensive systems and certainly in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and to some degree in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia as well, you have systems that are not integrated with other markets. So they’re sort of electricity islands, and on those islands, there’s very little electricity generating capacity that doesn’t come from coal, natural gas.
Canada's new electricity regulations: How the Liberals want to get to net-zero — National Post
In Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, fossil fuels are a large part of the electricity mix — which makes hitting the 2035 target difficult
My chrystal ball shows a lot of hours of sensitivity training in your future. I hear there is a good trainer in Toronto looking for work.
Larry Niven said it best. "Take the nuclear waste and mix it with concrete. Pour it into blocks. Stack the blocks in the middle of the desert. Pace off 1/4 of a mile, and build a fence. Hang a sign on the fence saying 'If you cross this fence, you will die.' Think of it as evolution in action."
I can picture protesters in high viz. vests climbing that fence and glueing them selves to those blocks in protest. Keeps them from playing in traffic I guess. I hope the pack a lunch.
I'll pack a lunch just to watch 'em.