Those sites were not selected for their ability to accommodate nuclear waste.
April Fools!! Here's your Carbon Tax F#ckers!!!
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
The draft clean electricity regulations, released last week, serve as a warning that neither the provinces nor industry nor common sense will stand in the way of the federal government’s commitment to meeting the radical emissions targets agreed to in Paris in 2015. Whether the Liberals will successfully force power grids to achieve net zero by 2035 is far from certain, but one thing seems clear: the climate agenda has put the final nail in the coffin of deregulation. Big government is here to stay.
The draft regulations were immediately attacked by the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan as being “unconstitutional” and “unachievable.” Although there have been varying estimates of how much the transformation will cost — with Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault disingenuously claiming Canadians will save money by switching away from fossil fuels (which his carbon tax has artificially inflated in price) — there can be little question that it would be an expensive undertaking for the Prairie provinces.
Canada as a cautionary tale for other nations…even for other socialist nations, this time on self-flagellating carbon taxes. At least some good is coming from the last 8 years.
NP View: Liberal net-zero scheme heralds dark era of ever-growing government — National Post
The draft clean electricity regulations, released last week, serve as a warning that neither the provinces nor industry nor common sense will stand in the way of the federal government’s commitment to meeting the radical emissions targets agreed to in Paris in 2015. Whether the Liberals will...
SaskPower is indeed socialistic but its an export earner.View attachment 19047
The draft clean electricity regulations, released last week, serve as a warning that neither the provinces nor industry nor common sense will stand in the way of the federal government’s commitment to meeting the radical emissions targets agreed to in Paris in 2015. Whether the Liberals will successfully force power grids to achieve net zero by 2035 is far from certain, but one thing seems clear: the climate agenda has put the final nail in the coffin of deregulation. Big government is here to stay.
The draft regulations were immediately attacked by the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan as being “unconstitutional” and “unachievable.” Although there have been varying estimates of how much the transformation will cost — with Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault disingenuously claiming Canadians will save money by switching away from fossil fuels (which his carbon tax has artificially inflated in price) — there can be little question that it would be an expensive undertaking for the Prairie provinces.
Canada as a cautionary tale for other nations…even for other socialist nations, this time on self-flagellating carbon taxes. At least some good is coming from the last 8 years.
NP View: Liberal net-zero scheme heralds dark era of ever-growing government — National Post
The draft clean electricity regulations, released last week, serve as a warning that neither the provinces nor industry nor common sense will stand in the way of the federal government’s commitment to meeting the radical emissions targets agreed to in Paris in 2015. Whether the Liberals will...apple.news
If we cut exports would we need SMRs?
Good question. If the Federal government is going to punish the Provincial government for coal and natural gas generated power as of 2035, there is a push for something like it.
There’s been no official accounting of what net zero might cost, but a 2021 report by RBC puts the price tag at about $2 trillion between now and 2050. Or, at least $60 billion per year. That’s roughly what it cost Canada for each year it fought the Second World War. Or, it’s akin to seizing the entire GDP of Manitoba each year and directing it exclusively towards decarbonization.
And none of that accounts for the inevitable economic damage incurred by progressively cutting off Canadians’ access to cheap/affordable energy.
In a May report, the Ottawa-based Public Policy Forum ran the numbers on what would happen if Canada prematurely shut down its oil and gas sector in a bid to fast-track net zero.
By 2050, it will have cost Canada $100 billion in forgone earnings. ”This essentially amounts to a deep recession without a recovery ever materializing,” read a conclusion, adding that most of the damage would be concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
apple.news
The Public Policy Forum is not an opponent of aggressive action on climate change; “there is no way of doing nothing in the face of the climate emergency,” the group said in May. They merely suggested that policymakers might want to figure out which of their net-zero proposals would be least likely to make the country poorer.
The federal government has provided remarkably little explanation as to why this should all be done.
Even if Canadians accept that action is needed on climate change (and they do), there is no cost-benefit analysis weighing the cost of net zero against the planetary damage that Canada’s emissions would otherwise impose under a “do nothing” scenario.
Ottawa also doesn’t appear to have considered whether an all-out drive to completely extinguish domestic emissions is the most efficient way that Canadian resources could be mobilized to keep carbon out of the world’s atmosphere.
Carbon mitigation becomes exponentially more expensive the more it approaches net zero. Shutting down coal plants and planting a few more trees is easy, but as Canada chases down every last jet plane and oil furnace, costs would rise considerably as those final tonnes are stamped out via carbon capture — a process that currently costs upwards of $1,000 per tonne.
In a recent column for National Post, writer Adam Pankratz wrote that if the goal was simply to mitigate as many planetary emissions as possible, Canada’s best short-term course of action might be to feverishly export its natural gas reserves in order to supplant far-dirtier coal power plants in Europe and Asia.
But government literature all takes net zero as inevitable. The only question is how quickly to get there.
Canada is already most of the way there: Sixty per cent of our electricity comes from hydroelectric dams, 15 per cent of it comes from nuclear and six per cent comes from some combination of wind, biomass or geothermal.
But that last 19 per cent can’t be shaken loose without somehow building a lot more transmission lines, hydroelectric dams, nuclear plants and carbon capture projects — very little of which are even on drawing boards, much less under construction.
And that’s setting aside the fact that electrical generation will somehow need to surge by 100 per cent in the coming years to handle all of the new fleets of electric cars Ottawa is planning for.
And none of that accounts for the inevitable economic damage incurred by progressively cutting off Canadians’ access to cheap/affordable energy.
In a May report, the Ottawa-based Public Policy Forum ran the numbers on what would happen if Canada prematurely shut down its oil and gas sector in a bid to fast-track net zero.
By 2050, it will have cost Canada $100 billion in forgone earnings. ”This essentially amounts to a deep recession without a recovery ever materializing,” read a conclusion, adding that most of the damage would be concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
FIRST READING: Net-zero may be the most ill-conceived national project Canada has ever pursued — National Post
Its costs may well outweigh its benefits to the planet
The Public Policy Forum is not an opponent of aggressive action on climate change; “there is no way of doing nothing in the face of the climate emergency,” the group said in May. They merely suggested that policymakers might want to figure out which of their net-zero proposals would be least likely to make the country poorer.
The federal government has provided remarkably little explanation as to why this should all be done.
Even if Canadians accept that action is needed on climate change (and they do), there is no cost-benefit analysis weighing the cost of net zero against the planetary damage that Canada’s emissions would otherwise impose under a “do nothing” scenario.
Ottawa also doesn’t appear to have considered whether an all-out drive to completely extinguish domestic emissions is the most efficient way that Canadian resources could be mobilized to keep carbon out of the world’s atmosphere.
Carbon mitigation becomes exponentially more expensive the more it approaches net zero. Shutting down coal plants and planting a few more trees is easy, but as Canada chases down every last jet plane and oil furnace, costs would rise considerably as those final tonnes are stamped out via carbon capture — a process that currently costs upwards of $1,000 per tonne.
In a recent column for National Post, writer Adam Pankratz wrote that if the goal was simply to mitigate as many planetary emissions as possible, Canada’s best short-term course of action might be to feverishly export its natural gas reserves in order to supplant far-dirtier coal power plants in Europe and Asia.
But government literature all takes net zero as inevitable. The only question is how quickly to get there.
Canada is already most of the way there: Sixty per cent of our electricity comes from hydroelectric dams, 15 per cent of it comes from nuclear and six per cent comes from some combination of wind, biomass or geothermal.
But that last 19 per cent can’t be shaken loose without somehow building a lot more transmission lines, hydroelectric dams, nuclear plants and carbon capture projects — very little of which are even on drawing boards, much less under construction.
And that’s setting aside the fact that electrical generation will somehow need to surge by 100 per cent in the coming years to handle all of the new fleets of electric cars Ottawa is planning for.
And don’t forget the 500,000 new carbon consumers per year we are importing .There’s been no official accounting of what net zero might cost, but a 2021 report by RBC puts the price tag at about $2 trillion between now and 2050. Or, at least $60 billion per year. That’s roughly what it cost Canada for each year it fought the Second World War. Or, it’s akin to seizing the entire GDP of Manitoba each year and directing it exclusively towards decarbonization.
And none of that accounts for the inevitable economic damage incurred by progressively cutting off Canadians’ access to cheap/affordable energy.
In a May report, the Ottawa-based Public Policy Forum ran the numbers on what would happen if Canada prematurely shut down its oil and gas sector in a bid to fast-track net zero.
By 2050, it will have cost Canada $100 billion in forgone earnings. ”This essentially amounts to a deep recession without a recovery ever materializing,” read a conclusion, adding that most of the damage would be concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
FIRST READING: Net-zero may be the most ill-conceived national project Canada has ever pursued — National Post
Its costs may well outweigh its benefits to the planet
The Public Policy Forum is not an opponent of aggressive action on climate change; “there is no way of doing nothing in the face of the climate emergency,” the group said in May. They merely suggested that policymakers might want to figure out which of their net-zero proposals would be least likely to make the country poorer.
View attachment 19051
The federal government has provided remarkably little explanation as to why this should all be done.
Even if Canadians accept that action is needed on climate change (and they do), there is no cost-benefit analysis weighing the cost of net zero against the planetary damage that Canada’s emissions would otherwise impose under a “do nothing” scenario.
Ottawa also doesn’t appear to have considered whether an all-out drive to completely extinguish domestic emissions is the most efficient way that Canadian resources could be mobilized to keep carbon out of the world’s atmosphere.
Carbon mitigation becomes exponentially more expensive the more it approaches net zero. Shutting down coal plants and planting a few more trees is easy, but as Canada chases down every last jet plane and oil furnace, costs would rise considerably as those final tonnes are stamped out via carbon capture — a process that currently costs upwards of $1,000 per tonne.
In a recent column for National Post, writer Adam Pankratz wrote that if the goal was simply to mitigate as many planetary emissions as possible, Canada’s best short-term course of action might be to feverishly export its natural gas reserves in order to supplant far-dirtier coal power plants in Europe and Asia.
But government literature all takes net zero as inevitable. The only question is how quickly to get there.
Canada is already most of the way there: Sixty per cent of our electricity comes from hydroelectric dams, 15 per cent of it comes from nuclear and six per cent comes from some combination of wind, biomass or geothermal.
But that last 19 per cent can’t be shaken loose without somehow building a lot more transmission lines, hydroelectric dams, nuclear plants and carbon capture projects — very little of which are even on drawing boards, much less under construction.
And that’s setting aside the fact that electrical generation will somehow need to surge by 100 per cent in the coming years to handle all of the new fleets of electric cars Ottawa is planning for.
There used to be a convention in Canada that politicians didn’t criticize our own country while they were visiting other countries.
Primarily, this was applied to opposition politicians because there would be no reason for a government MP to criticize Canada on foreign soil.
But last week, Justin Trudeau’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change decided to be critical of Canada twice, on environmental issues, while he was visiting China.
Steven Guilbeault wrapped up a meeting on Thursday with the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development. This is an organization founded and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party of China but Guilbeault serves as executive vice president of the group.
“The CCICED AGM provided an international forum for Minister Guilbeault to advance cooperation and ambition on a number of environmental issues,” a news release from Guilbeault’s department stated.
They hailed his ability to work with China and other international partners and pointed out that previous environment ministers — Peter Kent in 2014 under Stephen Harper and Catherine McKenna in 2016 under Justin Trudeau — had also attended the annual general meeting of the CCICED….BUT Not as executive vice president of the group founded and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party of China….so Shhhhhh….
With all respect to former ministers Kent and McKenna, neither of them participated with this group at a time when China was interfering in Canada’s elections, operating illegal police stations to intimidate Chinese-Canadian citizens, or after China had kidnapped our citizens.
To be blunt, things have changed with China but Guilbeault, and by extension Trudeau, does not see that.
Guilbeault wasn’t critical of China while he was in Beijing, perhaps because he was heeding the warnings issued to him ahead of time. An article on the Global Times, an organ of the Communist Party, said that if Guilbeault pushed for China to accelerate its path to carbon neutrality, “the output could be counterproductive.”
So, Guilbeault stayed quiet on China’s emissions but made two public rebukes of Canadian organizations while in Beijing.
“To see the leader of a great Canadian company say that he is basically disengaging from climate change and sustainability, that he’s going to focus on short-term profit, it’s all the wrong answers,” Guilbeault told Canadian Press in an interview.
The minister was referring to Suncor, which said during its most recent earnings call that it was recommitting to the oil sands and drawing value from those assets. The company also said it remained committed to hitting its 2050 target for being carbon neutral.
That didn’t stop Guilbeault from lashing out, calling Suncor’s moves disappointing and linking them to the forest fires that have ravaged much of the country this year????
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith rightly described Guilbeault’s statements as showing “utter contempt” for the province and its industry.
The next criticism of Canada came in the form of complaining about gas price regulators allowing price increases in July. Those price increases came as both the national carbon tax and the clean fuel regulations came into effect pushing prices higher.
While in Beijing, Guilbeault granted another interview calling those price hikes “unfair.”
Looks like Guilbeault forgot that the very purpose of his policies on the carbon tax and clean fuel regulations is to drive prices higher and encourage consumers to choose other products.
Industry as well as private citizens are feeling the crunch from multiple Carbon Taxes and it all has to get paid for somehow & somewhere…& that’s the end users…being you & I. The Liberal/NDP Government couldn’t see this years ago like everyone else could???
With prices going up and consumers, also voters, getting grumpy, Guilbeault lashed out a Canadian government agencies implementing those policies.
If only Guilbeault were as tough on China as he is on Canada.
Prior to heading to Beijing and criticizing our industries and government agencies, he was engaged in fights with provincial premiers.
On China, the country building a coal-fired electricity plant a week, sometimes more, Guilbeault is silent.
apple.news
Primarily, this was applied to opposition politicians because there would be no reason for a government MP to criticize Canada on foreign soil.
But last week, Justin Trudeau’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change decided to be critical of Canada twice, on environmental issues, while he was visiting China.
Steven Guilbeault wrapped up a meeting on Thursday with the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development. This is an organization founded and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party of China but Guilbeault serves as executive vice president of the group.
“The CCICED AGM provided an international forum for Minister Guilbeault to advance cooperation and ambition on a number of environmental issues,” a news release from Guilbeault’s department stated.
They hailed his ability to work with China and other international partners and pointed out that previous environment ministers — Peter Kent in 2014 under Stephen Harper and Catherine McKenna in 2016 under Justin Trudeau — had also attended the annual general meeting of the CCICED….BUT Not as executive vice president of the group founded and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party of China….so Shhhhhh….
With all respect to former ministers Kent and McKenna, neither of them participated with this group at a time when China was interfering in Canada’s elections, operating illegal police stations to intimidate Chinese-Canadian citizens, or after China had kidnapped our citizens.
To be blunt, things have changed with China but Guilbeault, and by extension Trudeau, does not see that.
Guilbeault wasn’t critical of China while he was in Beijing, perhaps because he was heeding the warnings issued to him ahead of time. An article on the Global Times, an organ of the Communist Party, said that if Guilbeault pushed for China to accelerate its path to carbon neutrality, “the output could be counterproductive.”
So, Guilbeault stayed quiet on China’s emissions but made two public rebukes of Canadian organizations while in Beijing.
“To see the leader of a great Canadian company say that he is basically disengaging from climate change and sustainability, that he’s going to focus on short-term profit, it’s all the wrong answers,” Guilbeault told Canadian Press in an interview.
The minister was referring to Suncor, which said during its most recent earnings call that it was recommitting to the oil sands and drawing value from those assets. The company also said it remained committed to hitting its 2050 target for being carbon neutral.
That didn’t stop Guilbeault from lashing out, calling Suncor’s moves disappointing and linking them to the forest fires that have ravaged much of the country this year????
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith rightly described Guilbeault’s statements as showing “utter contempt” for the province and its industry.
The next criticism of Canada came in the form of complaining about gas price regulators allowing price increases in July. Those price increases came as both the national carbon tax and the clean fuel regulations came into effect pushing prices higher.
While in Beijing, Guilbeault granted another interview calling those price hikes “unfair.”
Looks like Guilbeault forgot that the very purpose of his policies on the carbon tax and clean fuel regulations is to drive prices higher and encourage consumers to choose other products.
Industry as well as private citizens are feeling the crunch from multiple Carbon Taxes and it all has to get paid for somehow & somewhere…& that’s the end users…being you & I. The Liberal/NDP Government couldn’t see this years ago like everyone else could???
With prices going up and consumers, also voters, getting grumpy, Guilbeault lashed out a Canadian government agencies implementing those policies.
If only Guilbeault were as tough on China as he is on Canada.
Prior to heading to Beijing and criticizing our industries and government agencies, he was engaged in fights with provincial premiers.
On China, the country building a coal-fired electricity plant a week, sometimes more, Guilbeault is silent.
LILLEY: Guilbeault criticizes Canada from Beijing but silent on China — Toronto Sun
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault calls out Canadian companies and regulators while visiting emissions-leading China
That is a sign of weakness. Never ever show your hand when negotiating.There used to be a convention in Canada that politicians didn’t criticize our own country while they were visiting other countries.
Primarily, this was applied to opposition politicians because there would be no reason for a government MP to criticize Canada on foreign soil.
But last week, Justin Trudeau’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change decided to be critical of Canada twice, on environmental issues, while he was visiting China.
Steven Guilbeault wrapped up a meeting on Thursday with the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development. This is an organization founded and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party of China but Guilbeault serves as executive vice president of the group.
“The CCICED AGM provided an international forum for Minister Guilbeault to advance cooperation and ambition on a number of environmental issues,” a news release from Guilbeault’s department stated.
They hailed his ability to work with China and other international partners and pointed out that previous environment ministers — Peter Kent in 2014 under Stephen Harper and Catherine McKenna in 2016 under Justin Trudeau — had also attended the annual general meeting of the CCICED….BUT Not as executive vice president of the group founded and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party of China….so Shhhhhh….
View attachment 19189
With all respect to former ministers Kent and McKenna, neither of them participated with this group at a time when China was interfering in Canada’s elections, operating illegal police stations to intimidate Chinese-Canadian citizens, or after China had kidnapped our citizens.
To be blunt, things have changed with China but Guilbeault, and by extension Trudeau, does not see that.
Guilbeault wasn’t critical of China while he was in Beijing, perhaps because he was heeding the warnings issued to him ahead of time. An article on the Global Times, an organ of the Communist Party, said that if Guilbeault pushed for China to accelerate its path to carbon neutrality, “the output could be counterproductive.”
So, Guilbeault stayed quiet on China’s emissions but made two public rebukes of Canadian organizations while in Beijing.
“To see the leader of a great Canadian company say that he is basically disengaging from climate change and sustainability, that he’s going to focus on short-term profit, it’s all the wrong answers,” Guilbeault told Canadian Press in an interview.
The minister was referring to Suncor, which said during its most recent earnings call that it was recommitting to the oil sands and drawing value from those assets. The company also said it remained committed to hitting its 2050 target for being carbon neutral.
That didn’t stop Guilbeault from lashing out, calling Suncor’s moves disappointing and linking them to the forest fires that have ravaged much of the country this year????
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith rightly described Guilbeault’s statements as showing “utter contempt” for the province and its industry.
The next criticism of Canada came in the form of complaining about gas price regulators allowing price increases in July. Those price increases came as both the national carbon tax and the clean fuel regulations came into effect pushing prices higher.
While in Beijing, Guilbeault granted another interview calling those price hikes “unfair.”
Looks like Guilbeault forgot that the very purpose of his policies on the carbon tax and clean fuel regulations is to drive prices higher and encourage consumers to choose other products.
Industry as well as private citizens are feeling the crunch from multiple Carbon Taxes and it all has to get paid for somehow & somewhere…& that’s the end users…being you & I. The Liberal/NDP Government couldn’t see this years ago like everyone else could???
With prices going up and consumers, also voters, getting grumpy, Guilbeault lashed out a Canadian government agencies implementing those policies.
If only Guilbeault were as tough on China as he is on Canada.
Prior to heading to Beijing and criticizing our industries and government agencies, he was engaged in fights with provincial premiers.
On China, the country building a coal-fired electricity plant a week, sometimes more, Guilbeault is silent.
LILLEY: Guilbeault criticizes Canada from Beijing but silent on China — Toronto Sun
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault calls out Canadian companies and regulators while visiting emissions-leading China
It all adds up to Canadians paying the highest sustained prices for fuel in our history, with knock-on effects throughout the entire economy.
apple.news
Most Canadians want carbon tax reduced or killed: poll — National Post
The survey also gauged Canadian reactions to the federal government’s stated plan to make Canada 'net zero' by 2050
As Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported, average Canadian households are already paying hundreds of dollars more in carbon taxes every year than they receive in rebates.
Yves Giroux says those costs – the result of the negative impact of carbon pricing on the economy – will rise every year as the carbon tax increases from $65 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions this year to $170 per tonne in 2030.
Meanwhile, more costs are looming for Canadians in the form of clean fuel and clean electricity regulations that don’t include rebates.
But no matter how high costs go, as Giroux also reported, it will have no impact on the incidence of severe weather in Canada or anywhere else, because our emissions, 1.5% of the global total, are too small to materially impact climate change.
To be fair to our federal Liberal government, any plan to reduce emissions will cost the public money and addressing it is a classic “wicked problem” – difficult to solve because it intersects with so many other competing societal and international issues and problems.
apple.news
While Alberta demands a longer timeline to meet the clean-electricity rules coming from Ottawa, federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said there will be no exceptions for provinces to attain a net-zero power grid by 2035.
Alberta wants to see the federal timeline shifted to 2050, giving utilities more time to invest in technology to decarbonize while ensuring there’s enough gas-fired electricity generation to back up the growing amount of intermittent renewable power in the province.
apple.news
Yves Giroux says those costs – the result of the negative impact of carbon pricing on the economy – will rise every year as the carbon tax increases from $65 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions this year to $170 per tonne in 2030.
Meanwhile, more costs are looming for Canadians in the form of clean fuel and clean electricity regulations that don’t include rebates.
But no matter how high costs go, as Giroux also reported, it will have no impact on the incidence of severe weather in Canada or anywhere else, because our emissions, 1.5% of the global total, are too small to materially impact climate change.
To be fair to our federal Liberal government, any plan to reduce emissions will cost the public money and addressing it is a classic “wicked problem” – difficult to solve because it intersects with so many other competing societal and international issues and problems.
GOLDSTEIN: Carbon taxes are money for nothing – here's why — Toronto Sun
As Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported, average Canadian households are already paying hundreds of dollars more in carbon taxes every year than they receive in rebates. Yves Giroux says those costs – the result of the negative impact of carbon pricing on the economy – will rise...
While Alberta demands a longer timeline to meet the clean-electricity rules coming from Ottawa, federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said there will be no exceptions for provinces to attain a net-zero power grid by 2035.
Alberta wants to see the federal timeline shifted to 2050, giving utilities more time to invest in technology to decarbonize while ensuring there’s enough gas-fired electricity generation to back up the growing amount of intermittent renewable power in the province.
Guilbeault says no exceptions for net-zero grid; Alberta counterpart calls remarks 'infuriating' — Calgary Herald
The Pembina Institute said its own research found multiple ways for Alberta’s power system to reach net-zero emissions by 2035
The province is warning people in Saskatchewan that SaskPower rates will be dramatically impacted if the Liberal government does what it says it will do.
Federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says provincial access to new funding for electricity projects will depend on those projects reducing climate impacts.
More specifically, that mean projects that help move power grids toward net-zero emissions levels by 2035.
“Certainly, to access the tax credit will require that we are moving in the direction of a non-emitting grid,” Wilkinson said Tuesday.
But Don Morgan — Saskatchewan’s minister responsible for SaskPower — says Saskatchewan cannot logistically, technically or financially meet Ottawa’s goal.
Saskatchewan remains committed to being net zero by 2050. In May, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said the federal government’s goal for net-zero emissions by 2035 wasn’t realistic.
He doubled down on that statement later that month while announcing Saskatchewan is planning to take until 2050 to achieve net-zero emissions on the power grid.
“What we are putting forward today is a Saskatchewan plan that is realistic, it’s affordable, and ultimately is going to provide us with the reliability in the baseload electricity that we require as we grow and prosper,” Moe said on May 16.
www.cjme.com
Grow and prosper? Moe is such a fringe element with unacceptable views.
Federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says provincial access to new funding for electricity projects will depend on those projects reducing climate impacts.
More specifically, that mean projects that help move power grids toward net-zero emissions levels by 2035.
“Certainly, to access the tax credit will require that we are moving in the direction of a non-emitting grid,” Wilkinson said Tuesday.
But Don Morgan — Saskatchewan’s minister responsible for SaskPower — says Saskatchewan cannot logistically, technically or financially meet Ottawa’s goal.
Saskatchewan remains committed to being net zero by 2050. In May, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said the federal government’s goal for net-zero emissions by 2035 wasn’t realistic.
He doubled down on that statement later that month while announcing Saskatchewan is planning to take until 2050 to achieve net-zero emissions on the power grid.
“What we are putting forward today is a Saskatchewan plan that is realistic, it’s affordable, and ultimately is going to provide us with the reliability in the baseload electricity that we require as we grow and prosper,” Moe said on May 16.
SaskPower rates to rise if feds follow through on net-zero plan: Morgan
The province is warning people in Saskatchewan that SaskPower rates will be dramatically impacted if the Liber...
www.cjme.com
Grow and prosper? Moe is such a fringe element with unacceptable views.
It'll be like 1982 where Sask loses a quarter of its population if 2035 remains in place.The province is warning people in Saskatchewan that SaskPower rates will be dramatically impacted if the Liberal government does what it says it will do.
Federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says provincial access to new funding for electricity projects will depend on those projects reducing climate impacts.
More specifically, that mean projects that help move power grids toward net-zero emissions levels by 2035.
“Certainly, to access the tax credit will require that we are moving in the direction of a non-emitting grid,” Wilkinson said Tuesday.
But Don Morgan — Saskatchewan’s minister responsible for SaskPower — says Saskatchewan cannot logistically, technically or financially meet Ottawa’s goal.
Saskatchewan remains committed to being net zero by 2050. In May, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said the federal government’s goal for net-zero emissions by 2035 wasn’t realistic.
He doubled down on that statement later that month while announcing Saskatchewan is planning to take until 2050 to achieve net-zero emissions on the power grid.
“What we are putting forward today is a Saskatchewan plan that is realistic, it’s affordable, and ultimately is going to provide us with the reliability in the baseload electricity that we require as we grow and prosper,” Moe said on May 16.
SaskPower rates to rise if feds follow through on net-zero plan: Morgan
The province is warning people in Saskatchewan that SaskPower rates will be dramatically impacted if the Liber...
Grow and prosper? Moe is such a fringe element with unacceptable views.
Guilbealt is a "sick" puppy whose ideology surpasses any common sense. Danielle Smith is right - we can (& are) reducing emissions while still utilizing O&G for our energy. Guilbealt is being an a/h - his solution is no solution at all. At least the Alberta Premier is on the right track!!As Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported, average Canadian households are already paying hundreds of dollars more in carbon taxes every year than they receive in rebates.
Yves Giroux says those costs – the result of the negative impact of carbon pricing on the economy – will rise every year as the carbon tax increases from $65 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions this year to $170 per tonne in 2030.
Meanwhile, more costs are looming for Canadians in the form of clean fuel and clean electricity regulations that don’t include rebates.
But no matter how high costs go, as Giroux also reported, it will have no impact on the incidence of severe weather in Canada or anywhere else, because our emissions, 1.5% of the global total, are too small to materially impact climate change.
To be fair to our federal Liberal government, any plan to reduce emissions will cost the public money and addressing it is a classic “wicked problem” – difficult to solve because it intersects with so many other competing societal and international issues and problems.
GOLDSTEIN: Carbon taxes are money for nothing – here's why — Toronto Sun
As Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported, average Canadian households are already paying hundreds of dollars more in carbon taxes every year than they receive in rebates. Yves Giroux says those costs – the result of the negative impact of carbon pricing on the economy – will rise...
While Alberta demands a longer timeline to meet the clean-electricity rules coming from Ottawa, federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said there will be no exceptions for provinces to attain a net-zero power grid by 2035.
Alberta wants to see the federal timeline shifted to 2050, giving utilities more time to invest in technology to decarbonize while ensuring there’s enough gas-fired electricity generation to back up the growing amount of intermittent renewable power in the province.
Guilbeault says no exceptions for net-zero grid; Alberta counterpart calls remarks 'infuriating' — Calgary Herald
The Pembina Institute said its own research found multiple ways for Alberta’s power system to reach net-zero emissions by 2035
I'd love to debate Guilbeault. I could make him eco-cry green tears by using facts and real Science. Once in awhile you'll hear a truth bomb being dropped.
The latest truth bomb was dropped on CBC RadiOne SK by none other than;
David Wayne Phillips, CM (born 8 September 1944) is senior climatologist for Environment Canada (Department of the Environment), spokesperson for the Meteorological Service of Canada, and author.[1]
When speaking about the "hottest summer on record" he clearly finished with " since records began 71 years ago".
I've stated on here numerous times that anything "on record" only goes back to 1952.
Does Steve know is underling is telling the truth putting the entire Liberal doomsday rhetoric at risk?
Last edited:
On the weekend, Gudie Hutchings, Trudeau’s minister for rural economic development and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, said on CTV’s Question Period that if provinces like Alberta want similar consideration, “Perhaps they need to elect more Liberals on the Prairies so that we can have that conversation, as well.”
As Alberta Premier Danielle Smith rightly responded on ‘X’ to Hutchings’ comments:
“You heard them. The carbon tax isn’t about reducing emissions, it’s punishment for not voting Liberal. There are no words to describe how absurd and damaging this is to our Confederation.”
While the Liberals argue their three-year exemption on applying the carbon tax to home heating oil in Atlantic Canada also applies across the country, the reality is that, unlike Atlantic Canada, oil isn’t a major source of home heating fuel on the Prairies, or for that matter in other provinces such as Ontario.
In those provinces, natural gas is a major source of home heating fuel, which emits fewer greenhouse gases when burned than oil, but is not being exempted from the carbon tax for three years.
Hutchings’ remarkable gaffe — which in politics means accidentally telling the public the truth — of linking favourable treatment on carbon taxes to political support for the Liberals, establishes that Trudeau’s carbon tax was never really about climate change or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It was about Liberal partisan politics and dividing Canadians against each other.
apple.news
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who has promised to scrap the federal carbon tax if he wins the next election, said Monday that the Trudeau government should pass emergency legislation before winter sets in, exempting the federal carbon tax on all fuels used for home heating, adding his party will back the Liberals if it does!!!
If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax had any shred of credibility left after he backed off applying it on home heating oil in Atlantic Canada for three years, his minister for Atlantic Canada has now slam-dunked it into the ground.
Trudeau’s desperate bid to shore up his plummeting poll numbers in Atlantic Canada, by torpedoing his highly unpopular tax in a part of the country that had previously been a bastion of Liberal support, was bad enough for his government’s credibility.
Personally, I’ve been saying that this has been an expensive fleecing from the beginning of this thread back on April fools day of 2019. At least it’s out in the open and nobody’s pretending anymore.
As Alberta Premier Danielle Smith rightly responded on ‘X’ to Hutchings’ comments:
“You heard them. The carbon tax isn’t about reducing emissions, it’s punishment for not voting Liberal. There are no words to describe how absurd and damaging this is to our Confederation.”
While the Liberals argue their three-year exemption on applying the carbon tax to home heating oil in Atlantic Canada also applies across the country, the reality is that, unlike Atlantic Canada, oil isn’t a major source of home heating fuel on the Prairies, or for that matter in other provinces such as Ontario.
In those provinces, natural gas is a major source of home heating fuel, which emits fewer greenhouse gases when burned than oil, but is not being exempted from the carbon tax for three years.
Hutchings’ remarkable gaffe — which in politics means accidentally telling the public the truth — of linking favourable treatment on carbon taxes to political support for the Liberals, establishes that Trudeau’s carbon tax was never really about climate change or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It was about Liberal partisan politics and dividing Canadians against each other.
EDITORIAL: Carbon tax ‘punishment’ for not voting Liberal — Toronto Sun
If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax had any shred of credibility left after he backed off applying it on home heating oil in Atlantic Canada for three years, his minister for Atlantic Canada has now slam-dunked it into the ground. Trudeau’s desperate bid to shore up his plummeting poll...
If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax had any shred of credibility left after he backed off applying it on home heating oil in Atlantic Canada for three years, his minister for Atlantic Canada has now slam-dunked it into the ground.
Trudeau’s desperate bid to shore up his plummeting poll numbers in Atlantic Canada, by torpedoing his highly unpopular tax in a part of the country that had previously been a bastion of Liberal support, was bad enough for his government’s credibility.
Personally, I’ve been saying that this has been an expensive fleecing from the beginning of this thread back on April fools day of 2019. At least it’s out in the open and nobody’s pretending anymore.
Trudeau is such a liar & so disingenuous! Heat pumps don't work after -10 or -15 degrees! What a waste of money!