Jagmeet Singh Takes Nonsensical Shots At Justin Trudeau While Gives NDP Premier John Horgan A Pass

63 posts / 0 new
Last post
jerrym

Yes, Singh is biased in his assessment of the situation and the NDP needs to take action with regard to its climate policies. However, lets take a look at the Liberal record on climate change that you are so proud of. 

The Liberal 25 year history of promising to deal with global warming has been one long series of promises followed by actions that always fail to meet their greenhouse emissions reduction targets and often result in an increase in emissions.

“Canada has missed two separate emission reduction targets (the 1992 Rio target and the 2005 Kyoto target) and is likely to miss the 2020 Copenhagen target as well. In fact, emissions in 2020 are expected to be nearly 20 per cent above the target.” (https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/news/canada/2018-09-18-canada-failing-to-red...)

The Liberals were deeply involved in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord agreeing that "Canada's Kyoto target was a 6% total reduction by 2012 compared to 1990 levels of 461 Megatonnes (Mt)". Instead the 1997 emissions of 671 Mt during the year of the signing of the Kyoto Accord had risen to 747 Mt in 2005, the last full year of a Liberal government before the Conservatives took over. This was 33% above the 1997 Liberal Kyoto target. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Kyoto_Protocol)

After running in the 2015 election campaign on a climate change platform, Trudeau adopted Harper's greenhouse emission targets, which many climate change scientists were far from enough. Unfortunately, he  hasn't even come close to meeting those. 

In March 2018 the auditor general concluded  the Trudeau Liberal government "is likely to miss the 2020 Copenhagen target as well". (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_otp_201803_e_42883.html)

In April 2019 Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand concluded "Canada is not on track to hit its 2030 target,". These targets were  the Conservative Harper government ones. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-commissioner-julie-gelfand-...)

The Liberals declared a climate emergency in June and then announced today the tripling of the Trans Mountain pipeline to carry bitumen to the coast bringing about a massive expansion of the fossil fuel production. Trudeau won the understatement of the year award today when he said "Not everyone will agree with this".  

Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna called climate change a “real and urgent crisis, driven by human activity,” requiring the government to make deep emissions reductions to meet its Paris commitments. The Liberals have failed previously failed to meet their greenhouse gas reduction goals of 1992, 1997, and 2005.

Eugene Kung, lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, and lead on the First Nations case against the pipeline commented on Trudeau's announcement that profits from the pipeline would be used to promote green energy: "That’s like saying we need to keep selling cigarettes to have money to fight cancer". Former Liberal Environment minister David Anderson point out "There is no credible evidence to suggest that Asia is likely to be a reliable or a significant market for Alberta bitumen". (https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/wjvkqq/canada-justin-trudeau-declares...)

By the way "there are no refineries in Asia that can currently handle Canadian bitumen, which needs to be processed first into synthetic crude." (https://globalnews.ca/news/5399442/5-things-to-know-about-trans-mountain/) So the line that we will be able to sell it for higher prices in Asia is a myth. 

The Liberal solution: declare a national climate emergency and immediately announce more pipeline and fossil fuel production. The announcement of the Trudeau Liberal go-ahead on the Trans Mountain pipeline came one day after it also declared a national climate change emergency as Alberta wildfires continued to grow and force more people out of their homes. Those forced from their homes are often indigenous people, since many of their communities are in boreal forest regions, where the risk of such fires is greatest as a warmer, drier regional climate greatly increases the wildfire risk. What has happened in Australia, could happen here. In fact, the wildfire destruction of Fort MacMurray and the raging wildfires over two summers in BC in recent years, emphasize the need to shift away from fossil fuel production and subsidies that has continued under the Liberal and Conservative governments for more than 25 years since the risks of climate change became apparent.

Then the Liberals built a campaign around promising to deal with climate change and focusing on how much better they would be than the Conservatives. We'll talk about what has happened since the election, just a couple of brief months ago, in the next post.

jerrym

Despite  2010-2019 being the hottest decade ever recorded, despite 2019 being the second hottest ever, and despite eight of the top ten hottest years being in the 2010s, the Trudeau government, supposedly committed to dealing with global warming continues to push forward with:

(1) the Trans Mountain pipeline to the BC coast;

(2) looking at approving the Frontier Mine in Alberta, which "would  cover 24,000-hectares (roughly double the size of the City of Vancouver) and would produce 260,000 barrels of bitumen each day at its peak (https://thenarwhal.ca/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-massive-new-o...) making it one of the largest oilsands mines. It would increase oilsands greenhouse gas emissions by 25%;

 (3) the completion of Enbridge's Line 3 to Manitoba in December that is currently shipping 400,000 more barrels per day to Manitoba and " will have oil export capacity of 760,000 barrels per day (bpd)" when the US portion is finished this year (https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/enbridge-line-three-shipping-oil-1.5377031),

(4)the proposed $14 billion LNG pipeline from Ontario to Saguenay Quebec for export to Europe, Asia and Brazil (https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2019/quebecs-natural-gas-ex...).

(5) The Trudeau government "treated Donald Trump’s election as “positive news” for Canada’s energy industry and welcomed the help of Canada’s main corporate oil group in lobbying the US administration, documents show." (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2018/feb/09/trudeau-g...)

Therefore, there is no doubt the Trudeau Liberals are now celebrating the announcement of the great news that work on the US portion of the XL pipeline will resume in February. Canadian pipeline company TC Energy Corp said earlier this month that it planned to start pre-construction work in February for its Keystone XL oil pipeline, the start of a busy planned work schedule in 2020 for the long-delayed project. ...

The $8-billion Keystone XL project would carry 830,000 barrels per day of oil sands crude from Alberta to the U.S. Midwest and then on to the Gulf Coast. It has been delayed for more than a decade by opposition from landowners, environmental groups and tribes and after former U.S. President Barack Obama rejected the project. ...

TC said it plans to start building pumping stations along the entire pipeline route in June. Work on a pipeline segment in Nebraska would also start in June, followed by the start of construction of some segments in Montana and South Dakota in August.

The schedule hinges on starting to mobilize equipment in February, TC said. Work will continue in 2021.

https://calgaryherald.com/pmn/business-pmn/tc-energy-to-resume-work-on-k...

The International Monetary Fund, hardly a left-wing climate change activist organization, has calculated in a report that the Trudeau government heavily subsidizes Canada's fossil fuel industry. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's vow to phase out ‘inefficient’ subsidies for coal, oil and gas still hasn’t happened — despite the escalating costs of the climate emergency.

According to a new International Monetary Fund (IMF) report, Canada subsidized the fossil fuel industry to the tune of almost $60 billion in 2015 — approximately $1,650 per Canadian.  

Yet subsidizing one of the world’s wealthiest industries is folly.  Such subsidies not only hurt Canadian taxpayers and the economy — they also exacerbate the climate emergency.

The problem is that subsidies encourage the production and wasteful consumption of fossil fuels all while impeding the shift to cleaner renewables. 

For these reasons, during the last election campaign Justin Trudeau sensibly committed to “phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.”   

The problem is that government has not yet delivered on this promise.  

A new 2019 report by Canada’s Auditor General reveals government’s review of such subsidies is “incomplete and not rigorous,” is “not based on all relevant and reliable information” and “did not consider economic, social and environmental sustainability over the long term.” (https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-amount-to-1650-per-c...)

Yes Singh and the NDP have less than consistent in their climate change policies, but the Trudeau Liberal  government's promotion of more fossil fuel production and its ongoing billions in subsidies to the industry puts Canada's future in question.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

quizzical wrote:

Horgan doesn't have a say when the RCMP are following a federal judges findings. full stop.

Horgan could order the BC government to revoke the permits for the pipeline construction tomorrow if he wanted to, effectively stopping the project. At which point the RCMP would have no reason to continue acting as a paramilitary force for Trans-Canada.

Unfortunately, Horgan choses not to, and acts as though the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs are the ones being unreasonable, when reality is the opposite.

jerrym

There is more evidence, as I noted in the Canada and Global Warming thread, that the Trudeau government deserves the criticism it is receiving from a wide variety of sources on failing to live up to its climate change election platform.

CBC is reporting that two sources close to Trudeau have said that the Liberal cabinet is considering approving Teck's Frontier Mine oilsands project that would increase oilsands emissions by 260,000, barrels per day over a 41 year mine history,thereby adding 20% to current oilsands emissions in return for Teck promising to achieve net zero emissions over all its projects by 2050. The "mine" would be twice the size of Vancouver and release many comtaminants into the surrounding land and water as well. 

"Critics have said the project can only turn a profit if North American oil prices are above US$75 a barrel" (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-frontier-oil-sands-mine...) This is at a time when oil has dropped below $50 a barrel. Could the taxpayer be left holding the barrel for subsidies, cost overruns and abandoment of the project if it proceeds partway but is not financially viable. Canadians already facing $260 billion in cleanup costs for oilwells that no longer are operating. The Alberta Energy Regulator reported "Cleaning up the Alberta oilpatch could cost an estimated $260 billion, internal regulatory documents warn. " (https://globalnews.ca/news/4617664/cleaning-up-albertas-oilpatch-could-c...)

Trudeau's has already passed his 2020 greenhouse emission targets, as determined by the Auditor General and is well on his way to passing the 2030 emission targets by a wide margin (see post #52 for the details). 

Now the Trudeau Liberals sound like they are ready to move their target to 2050, long after he is gone from power and 3/4 of the way through the expected life of the mine, when nothing can be done to (surprise) the company for failing to keep such a promise. The Trudeau government seems ready to let the envronmental and financial insanity continue.

The federal cabinet is considering approving the Teck Frontier oilsands mine, but with a condition — that Alberta legislate an emissions cap requiring the province to hit net-zero emissions by 2050 — two sources close to the prime minister tell CBC News. The Liberal cabinet must make a decision on the massive new oilsands project by the end of February, while facing pressure from environmentalists on one side and the Alberta government on the other. ...

That plan would see cabinet approve the project with conditions attached. One of those conditions would require that Alberta Premier Jason Kenney's government pass a legislated emissions cap that would cut the province's carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050. That would be in line with the federal Liberals' own net-zero campaign promise. ...

The Teck Resources oilsands mine would be vast: twice the size of the city of Vancouver. It would produce up to 260,000 barrels of bitumen a day. Its potential economic impact is big, too: 7,000 construction jobs, 2,500 operational ones and billions in tax revenue — $12 billion for the feds and $55 billion for Alberta over its expected 40-year lifespan. ...

The joint federal-provincial review panel that put the project through a rigorous regulatory review deemed it to be in the public interest. But the panel acknowledged in its review that the mine "may make it more difficult" for Canada to meet its Paris emissions reduction goals — targets Canada is already on track to miss without further emissions-cutting measures.

The project would generate about 4.1 megatonnes of emissions a year over its lifespan, though other estimates put the figure higher.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/teck-mine-approval-emissions-cap-net-ze...

Mighty Middle

Panel discussion on CBC with the majority of the panelists agreeing that even IF Justin Trudeau approves the project, the Teck Oilsands Mine will most likely NEVER get off the ground or even built. Why?

Former NDP Sask Finance Minister Andrew Thomson said the likelihood of this project getting off ground is questionable because this is only a proposal on paper. Another panelist said the company needs (1) a partner (2) a pipeline (3) oil north of $75 a barrel - the company has none of these. And probably would not get any of those three to get this project started.

 Another reason is because global investment in fossil fuels is going to those that are LOWEST intensity emitters - because of the oil sands that rules out Canada.

Trudeau knows all this, and is probably only considering approving to this project just to placate Alberta because of the National Unity issue. As he knows this project is already DOA no matter if he approves it or not.

You can see the panel discussion here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QpK4sM0sqI

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

Panel discussion on CBC with the majority of the panelists agreeing that even IF Justin Trudeau approves the project, the Teck Oilsands Mine will most likely NEVER get off the ground or even built. ...

 

Trudeau knows all this, and is probably only considering approving to this project just to placate Alberta because of the National Unity issue. As he knows this project is already DOA no matter if he approves it or not.

You can see the panel discussion here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QpK4sM0sqI

That's not what they said on CBC's At Issue this week. According to that panel it's Trudeau and Freeland who are pushing the project and encountering resistance from many of their Ontario and Quebec MPs who see the project as a loser both economically and politically. 

However, beyond that, if your story is true it shows that Trudeau and the Liberals are doing what they have been doing for decades, misleading the public about their intentions by: (1) failing to live up to their Kyoto greenhouse reduction targets under Chretien and Martin, saying they will be the party to reduce the emissions in the 2015 election; (2) then adopting Harper's greenhouse emission targets after criticizing the Conservatives on climate change; (3) then failing to meet those targets for 2020 according to the auditor general in September 2018; and (4) also being unable to meet the 203o targets Environmental Commissioner in April of 2019; (5) only to now propose that it will all be okay if we hit zero emissions in 2050 when Trudeau will be long gone from government and, according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change totally useless as a target if we don't go well below the 2030 Canadian targets, as 2050 is too late if much of the greenhouse emissions reduction work has not already been done by 2030. 

However, this is not surprising this system of delivering quarter measures and in some cases nothing at all is exactly what the Liberals have been doing with pharmacare since the 1997 election and childcare since the 1993 election.

jerrym

The Trudeau Liberals now have another problem with their energy plans. As the costs of global warming escalate for both the climate and the environment, so do the costs of the Trans Mountain pipeline purchased by the Trudeau Liberal government. The Trans Mountain pipeline purchase for $4.5 billion was initially estimated to need $7.4 billion more for the extension, a cost estimate that had risen by another $1.9 billion in just two months for a total estimated cost of $13.8 by September 2018 and now has risen to $12.6 billion in construction costs for a total  estimated cost of $17.1 billion this month. 

This does not include the environmental costs of increased greenhouse gas emissions and damage to the environment during construction. The job numbers associated with the project by the Liberal government are inflated lies and the actual opportunity costs of jobs lost from being unable to use this money to transition to green energy jobs, are far greater than any jobs gained through Trans Mountain pipeline construction and operation, as the following articles show. 

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, opposed by the B.C. government, dragged into court by opponents and mishandled by its federal owners, is facing a massive cost overrun. The Trans Mountain project is now slated to cost $12.6 billion, up from the last published price tag of $7.4 billion. ...

It represents a 70 per cent hike since the project was approved by Ottawa less than four years ago. And if you really want to see some ugly math, it’s 133 per cent higher than the figure of $5.4 billion floated seven years ago.

https://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/varcoe-plenty-of-blame-to-go-a...

 

Sadly, there is also strong evidence that the pipeline is not needed and that Asian market waiting to buy the oil at a high price is a mirage. According to energy scientist David Hughes, the Liberal and Alberta governments' claim that a pipeline to tidewater is needed to provide higher paying markets and windfall revenue, aren't based in reality. Hughes says oil prices internationally and in North America are now nearly identical, meaning Canadian producers most likely will receive lower prices overseas, especially when the higher transportation costs involved in transporting bitumen by pipeline then  by tanker are factored in.  He also found that Kinder Morgan has overestimated oil supply by 43 per cent over the next 20 years. (http://www.iheartradio.ca/cfax-1070/news/damning-report-on-kinder-morgan...)

The claim of $18.5 billion in economic benefits seems to come from a January 2016 report on the pipeline by the Conference Board of Canada, which built on numbers contained in a 2013 report by the same organization. ... The problem is that this number is based on old price forecasts which had the international price of oil climbing to and remaining over $100 a barrel much more quickly than is actually happening. It is also based on Trans Mountain being the only approved pipeline, which it no longer is since the approval of both TransCanada’s Keystone XL and Enbridge’s Line 3. (https://www.parklandinstitute.ca/lets_share_actual_facts_about_the_trans...)

The Liberal government claim that the pipeline will create 15,000 jobs lies in the face of the fact that Kinder Morgan itself predicted it will create 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 50 permanent jobs in BC and 40 more in Alberta.(https://ipolitics.ca/2017/08/30/those-trans-mountain-employment-numbers-...)

The misleading numbers for job creation also left out job losses and the opportunity of developing many more permanent jobs in the renewable energy sector with  than the 90 permanent jobs in BC and Alberta that the pipeline requires once its construction is finished that could occur because of the expansion of the pipeline:

Jobs lost:

https://twnsacredtrust.ca/concerns/jobs/

 

jerrym

Another warning about the need for climate action comes from 246 Canadian academics, but the Trudeau Liberals continue on their fossil fuel path. A October 2019 International Monetary Fund, hardly an environmental advocacy organization, says "Canada subsidized the fossil fuel industry to the tune of almost $60 billion in 2015 — approximately $1,650 per Canadian. " (https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-amount-to-1650-per-c...)

Those subsidies have only gotten worse with the $17.1 billion now being spent by the Liberal government on the Trans Mountain pipeline during its purchase and estimated construction costs that have rapidly escalated (see previous post for details). Instead of responding to the global warming crisis by shifting spending to renewables the Trudeau Liberals doing the opposite by building the Trans Mountain pipeline and quite possibly the Frontier Mine. 

Here is the letter the 246 academics sent to Trudeau demanding immediate action to help avert a global collapse due to climate change. 

We represent a diverse group of academics working at universities and colleges across Canada who can no longer stand by in the face of human-driven climate change. 

In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published an alarmingreport confirming that climate change is posing a serious and unprecedented threat to the diversity and stability of life on earth. We face the imminent possibility of global eco-system collapse and mass social upheaval, and have little time to act. 

For this reason, we the undersigned are united in the call for the Canadian government to take radical action in addressing the climate emergency. We are also united in the call for Canadian universities to divest funds from the fossil fuel industry that is contributing to the climate crisis, and to redirect investments toward the renewable energy sector and other climate-enhancing technologies.

In doing so, we support the efforts of the international group Extinction Rebellion (XR), which is calling attention to our extreme predicament. With XR, we are particularly concerned about the threshold for runaway climate change, which would lead to irreversible catastrophic changes that would impact us all. To keep below the 1.5°C increase in temperature that the IPCC report strongly urges we do not exceed, we must cut global CO2 emissions by 45% by the year 2030.

As an affluent country that has historically emitted vastly more greenhouse gas emissions than the global average, Canada has a moral and practical responsibility to reduce its emissions much faster than the average rate. Allocating Canada a share of emissions remaining under 1.5°C proportional to its population size would require full decarbonization by 2025, aligning with XR’s demand.

To meet this target, we must begin substantially reducing emissions as rapidly as possible — this means that after decades of intransigence, inaction, and rising emissions, we cannot afford to delay a moment longer. Given the extremely small window of time we have, nothing less than the drastic, systemic changes XR demands are necessary: 1) that the Canadian government acknowledge the climate emergency — not just rhetorically but in how it acts — by using its powers to make the threat of the climate emergency as widely known as possible; 2) that the Canadian government enact legally-binding policies to halt biodiversity loss and reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025; 3) that the transition be supervised by a citizen assembly endowed with decision-making powers, in order to ensure an effective and equitable process; and 4) that the energy transition is just for all Canadians, especially those already marginalized and neglected in the current economy.

Standing with XR, we are thus demanding that the Canadian government enact laws for a mobilization of society not seen since the Second World War to meet the 2025 net zero CO2 emissions target.

And because Canada’s past and future warming is double that of the global average, destroying the fabric of life of the Inuit and other indigenous groups and contributing to their ongoing oppression, we also demand, with XR, that our government collaborates with indigenous members of society in our country and around the world toward climate justice. Strong collaborations, as well as protections, must also be systemically created with and for the poor in both affluent nations and in the Global South, those who face economic persecution simply because of their race, religion, sexuality or gender, and anyone who has been most affected by unchecked resource extraction in the service of an economic system that promises unsustainable growth.

We refuse to continue supporting politicians who claim to be concerned about climate change while simultaneously approving oil pipelines, tar sands mines, and gas liquefaction facilities.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/02/04/opinion/246-academics-call-g...

 

 

Mighty Middle

jerrym wrote:

That's not what they said on CBC's At Issue this week. According to that panel it's Trudeau and Freeland who are pushing the project and encountering resistance from many of their Ontario and Quebec MPs who see the project as a loser both economically and politically.

And because of this pushback now what is being reported his that Trudeau and his government plan to put so many additional environmental restrictions on this project (before they even consider green-lighting it) that it would be impossible for the owner of Teck Mines to go ahead. 

Even the owner of Teck Mines said he doesn't think this project is viable as they have no partner and need oil to back to being $75 a barrel. I think this project is dead in the water as its owner doesn't see any viability to go forward. It is only a question of how the Liberals can get out of this, without pissing off Alberta.

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

 

Even the owner of Teck Mines said he doesn't think this project is viable as they have no partner and need oil to back to being $75 a barrel. I think this project is dead in the water as its owner doesn't see any viability to go forward. It is only a question of how the Liberals can get out of this, without pissing off Alberta.

In other words, Trudeau, if he does cancel the Frontier Mine, it would be because it is not financially viable, not because of global warming. His spending on Trans Mountain is now $17.1 billion for purchase and its escalating construction costs (https://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/varcoe-plenty-of-blame-to-go-a...) This is in addition to the $60 billion a year spent on fossil fuel subsidies according to the International Monetary Fund, which is not known as an environmental organization (https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-amount-to-1650-per-c...). These subsidies would have went a long way toward developing a strong renewable energy industry in Canada. 

In fact a 2019 report emphasizes that a 10% shift in fossil fuel subsidies "would unleash a runaway clean energy revolution, according to a new report, significantly cutting the carbon emissions that are driving the climate crisis." This transition has already started in much of the world, but Canada and the Trudeau government continue to focus on fossil fuels which produce relatively few jobs for the financial investment and most of those disappear in the case of pipelines after construction is finished.

A good example is Trans Mountain, which according to the company would create only 2,500 jobs for its many billions in purchase and construction, with only 90 jobs needed for the pipeline after construction is finished (https://ipolitics.ca/2017/08/30/those-trans-mountain-employment-numbers-...).  "The claim of $18.5 billion in economic benefits from Trans Mountain comes from a January 2016 report on the pipeline by the Conference Board of Canada, which built on numbers contained in a 2013 report by the same organization".  The problem is that this was based on "prices remaining over $100 a barrel oil" and prices are now below $50 a barrel. None of this makes economic or environmental sense ((https://www.parklandinstitute.ca/lets_share_actual_facts_about_the_trans...)). 

We are in danger of being left far behind as the shift away from fossil fuels to renewables continues. But the Trudeau Liberals simply continue down the same old path of subsidization and increased fossil fuel production. 

Switching just some of the huge subsidies supporting fossil fuels to renewables would unleash a runaway clean energy revolution, according to a new report, significantly cutting the carbon emissions that are driving the climate crisis.

Coal, oil and gas get more than $370bn (£305bn) a year in support, compared with $100bn for renewables, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) report found. Just 10-30% of the fossil fuel subsidies would pay for a global transition to clean energy, the IISD said.

Ending fossil fuel subsidies has long been seen as vital to tackling the climate emergency, with the G20 nations pledging in 2009 to phase them out, but progress has been limited. In May, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, attacked subsidies, saying: “What we are doing is using taxpayers’ money – which means our money – to boost hurricanes, to spread droughts, to melt glaciers, to bleach corals. In one word: to destroy the world.”

The new analysis shows how redirecting some of the fossil fuel subsidies could decisively tip the balance in favour of green energy, making it the cheapest electricity available and instigating a rapid global rollout.

“Almost everywhere, renewables are so close to being competitive that [a 10-30% subsidy swap] tips the balance, and turns them from a technology that is slowly growing to one that is instantly the most viable and can replace really large amounts of generation,” said Richard Bridle of the IISD. “It goes from being marginal to an absolute no-brainer.”

The transition from polluting fossil fuels to clean energy is already under way. Annual investment in renewables has been greater than that in fossil fuel electricity generation since 2008 and new renewable capacity has exceeded fossil fuel power each year since 2014.

But progress is slow compared with the urgency required, said Bridle. “There is no question that renewables can power the energy system,” he said. “The question now is can we transition quickly enough away from fuels like coal, and subsidy reform is a very obvious step towards that.” Very few ways of cutting emissions actually save governments money, he said. ...

“A key breakthrough [in the energy transition] could occur if countries cut their fossil fuel subsidies, which are propping up dirty energy,” said Rana Adib, the executive secretary of the global sustainable energy network REN21. A recent REN21 report found 112 nations subsidised fossil fuel prices.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/fossil-fuel-subsidy-...

 

 

Aristotleded24

jerrym wrote:
The Trudeau Liberals now have another problem with their energy plans. As the costs of global warming escalate for both the climate and the environment, so do the costs of the Trans Mountain pipeline purchased by the Trudeau Liberal government. The Trans Mountain pipeline purchase for $4.5 billion was initially estimated to need $7.4 billion more for the extension, a cost estimate that had risen by another $1.9 billion in just two months for a total estimated cost of $13.8 by September 2018 and now has risen to $12.6 billion in construction costs for a total  estimated cost of $17.1 billion this month.

Jerry, what impact would that amount of federal spending have on public transit in Alberta? Would Calgary have enough money to complete its Green Line?

jerrym

Aristotleded24 wrote:

jerrym wrote:
The Trudeau Liberals now have another problem with their energy plans. As the costs of global warming escalate for both the climate and the environment, so do the costs of the Trans Mountain pipeline purchased by the Trudeau Liberal government. The Trans Mountain pipeline purchase for $4.5 billion was initially estimated to need $7.4 billion more for the extension, a cost estimate that had risen by another $1.9 billion in just two months for a total estimated cost of $13.8 by September 2018 and now has risen to $12.6 billion in construction costs for a total  estimated cost of $17.1 billion this month.

Jerry, what impact would that amount of federal spending have on public transit in Alberta? Would Calgary have enough money to complete its Green Line?

I am not very knowledgeable about Calgary's Green Line but I did find the article below about it showing costs rising by 10% from $4.9 billion in September 2019. Since Trans Mountain is already at $17.1 billion in costs, which is in addition to the other $60 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry that the International Monetary Fund already identified (https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-amount-to-1650-per-c...), that money could easily have covered this project. I am not saying this would be the best use of the money because I don't know enough about this project compared to alternative green pojects. 

However, nothing says more about where the Liberals are really going than their declaration of a national climate emergency in June 2019, followed the next day by approving the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, as money is more powerful than words. The same can be said for the carbon tax on business.  Environment Minister Catherine McKenna origionally "set the benchmark at 70 per cent of an industry's average emissions performance, meaning companies would have to pay a tax on emissions they produced in excess of that benchmark ... [then] adjusted the proposal to set the benchmark at 80 per cent of the industry average of emissions — and 90 per cent for producers of cement, iron and steel, lime and nitrogen fertilizer" after corporate complaints (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-carbon-price-lower-1.4769530)

City council’s transportation committee received an update Wednesday that the Green Line funding of $4.9 billion could increase by 10 percent, following a constructability review. The review found that technical risks to a tunnel under the downtown and under the Bow River were pushing the underground stations deeper than originally planned.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5920854/calgary-green-line-cost-estimates-inc...

Pages