Jagmeet Singh Supports Line 5 - While Annamie Paul Doesn't

12 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2021-05-11 18:22

Mighty Middle

Today NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh on why he supports Line 5

’It provides resources that are essential for heating homes and for transport at this time," asserting NDP is ‘’a pro-environment party."

While Green Party Leader Annamie Paul says Line 5 needs to be shut down saying

Gov. Whitmer’s decision to close the Line 5 pipeline wasn't taken lightly - risks to the Great Lakes and jobs if it ruptures are high. The question is: are there reasonable alternatives to Line 5? It appears available capacity exists in the North American pipeline system.

Wed, 2021-05-12 14:00

NDPP

'NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh when asked why he is against the shutdown of Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, asserts NDP is a 'pro-environment' party.' (and vid)

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1392219643679584263

"No 'pro-environment' party leader would support a 68-year old pipeline that runs across the straits of Mackinac."

ndp = no difference party

Thu, 2021-05-13 02:43

jerrym

Middle, you conveniently left out the fact that the Liberals are right now in court fighting hard to save the Line 5 pipeline.In addition, once again by taking a snippet of what Singh said, you gave a misleading picture of his full statement.

Here is more to give a fuller context to what Singh said.

"We absolutely need to reduce our emissions and create jobs. Line 5 is a project that needs to be replaced. It provides resources that are essential for heating homes and for transport at this time. We want a future where we are investing in a renewable economy, an economy where we are focused on renewable energy, clean energy that we want to build, and on the way to this future there are certain projects that we still need and this is one of them."

So what Singh is saying is not that Line 5 should continue indefinitely, but that we need it in the short term because Ontario and Quebec need this energy until we can build renewable green energy systems to replace it. Eliminating Line 5 would leave Quebec and Ontario facing an energy crisis.

Line 5 does have environmental issues, but so do all pipelines. We therefore need to replace fossil fuels quickly but until we do so, we are stuck with the pipelines unless we want to go the less save rail and truck fossil fuel route. The Lac Megantic rail disaster that took so many lives and destroyed the town centre shows the risks that come with these alternatives in the short run.

Besides the concerns raised by Line 68 year old age, there are other problems:

"One analysis predicts that 700 miles of shoreline would be at risk for contamination or exposure to oil if there was a spill. A 2017 report by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) showed Line 5 had spilled 1.1 million gallons of oil in 29 incidents since 1968. The data, obtained by NWF through a freedom of information request, indicated that many of the incidents were related to construction mishaps. Others were due to defects in the pipe, like stress cracking along a seam. More recently, Enbridge found the pipeline suffered damage in 2019, caused by some of its own ships. The company was also fined in June 2020 for failing to repair dents and cracks in its Lakehead System. (https://globalnews.ca/news/7854579/line-5-pipeline-enbridge-explained/)

On the other hand immediately shutting down Line 5 immediately would:

Experts are painting a grim picture of what Canada could face if the Line 5 pipeline gets shut down, with some saying the country could see its fuel capacity get cut in half. If the line does get shut down — either before or after a court-appointed mediator is set to meet with the two sides again on May 18 — petroleum analysts say it would cause “a significant, violent reaction economically” across Canada. ... “Consumers would have no fuel, and by no fuel I mean 66 per cent of Quebec’s oil would be cut off, 50 (per cent) for Ontario,” said Dan McTeague, president of Canadians for Affordable Energy." (https://globalnews.ca/news/7853729/line-5-pipeline-shutdown-canada-impact/)

How did we get caught in this dilemma? It is the failure of federal Liberal and Conservative governments that has put Canada in this position by not beginning this energy transformation much earlier. After all, the Liberals have been promising to cut greenhouse gas emissions in election after election since 1993 under the Chretien, Martin and Trudeau governments while continually building our fossil fuel and pipeline capacity. In the next post I will outline what the Liberals have done in building this fossil fuel and pipeline capacity.

Thu, 2021-05-13 02:47

jerrym

How did we reach the dilemma created by Canada needing Line 5 to meet Ontario and Quebec energy needs, but facing the prospect of this pipeline being shutdown by Michigan? It is the direct result of not undergoing the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy over the last thirty years of federal Conservative and Liberal rule.

While the Conservatives have been promising Canadians a fossil fuel future, the Liberals have for thirty years been promising to move us to a green energy future, while building more pipeline capacity and fossil fuel production.

The Liberal 28 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. When it comes to pipelines the Trudeau government have bought and are expanding Trans Mountain, tried to build Energy East until fear of Quebec opposition caused them back off, supported Keystone until blocked by Biden, completed Line 3 from Alberta to Manitoba to increase capacity with the aim of doubling it again if they can get it linked to a major US pipeline that is currently being fought in the US by environmentalists and First Nations, and backed a new pipeline from Ontario to the Saguenay region of Quebec in order to bring about a massive increase in exports to Europe and Asia until Warren Buffett dropped out of financing it because he did not see it as profitable. Its why we are stuck with the Line 5 dilemma and no immediate alternative energy source for Ontario and Quebec. Yes, NDP premiers Horgan and Notley policies have contributed to greenhouse emissions through the LNG infrastructure in BC and pushing Keystone while not transferring away from fossil fuels but Horgan at least was opposed to the Trans Mountain pipeline and Notley for all her oil boosterism, at least implemented the phase out of the worst fossil fuel, in the form of coal-fired energy facilities.

(1) “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 Chretien 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. Martin did little in office to fulfill the Liberals Kyoto promises. The Liberals have failed previously failed to meet their greenhouse gas reduction goals of 1992, 1997, and 2005. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Kyoto_Protocol)

(2) The Trudeau Liberals declared a climate emergency in June 2019 as he prepared for an election and then announced the next day 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".

(3) 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)

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

(5) the Trans Mountain pipeline to the BC coast to triple tarsands oil transportation that Trudeau purchased and is building it with "the total cost of taxpayers' investment in the Trans Mountain expansion to more than $17 billion" (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-pipeline-...) that will further increase emissions, money that could have been used to shift to green renewable energy;

(6) Trudeau looked 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 until the company pulled out of the plan;

(7) Trudeau pushed the completion of Enbridge's Line 3 to Manitoba in December 2019 that " 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) The final approval and start of construction of the American portion began at the beginning of December 2020 over the legal objections of two American First Nations, thereby contributing to more Canadian greenhouse gas emssions in the future.

(8) Trudeau supported a $14 billion LNG pipeline from Ontario to Saguenay Quebec for export to Europe, Asia and Brazil that only failed to come to fruition when Warren Buffet concluded it was not going to work financially (https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2019/quebecs-natural-gas-ex...)

ETA: (9) Trudeau also supported Energy East to build a pipeline to the Maritimes until he realized its lack of support in Quebec threatened his 40 Quebec Liberal MPs. "The reason Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent billions of taxpayer dollars to keep the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion alive while letting the Energy East pipeline proposal die is simple.“Just do the seat count,” Black, an elected member of the Canadian Senate representing Alberta, told BNN Bloomberg in a telephone interview from Calgary. “Quebec was opposed to Energy East and at that point in time it just became insurmountable.” (https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/do-the-seat-count-why-trudeau-chose-trans-mo...)

(10) 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 celebrated the announcement that work on the US portion of the XL pipeline would resume in February. Again this fell through, this time because of US court action, not because of the Trudeau government.

(11) Once again the Trudeau government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth as it changes offshore drilling rules in Newfoundland in order to make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to meet them and then proclaiming that the industry must live up to those standards while environmental organizations complain about the changes. The Liberal government has also excluded new drilling from environmental assessment there. This has become even more important with the announcement of the discovery of oil in two new places in the Newfoundland offshore.

(12) The Trudeau Liberals are redefining emissions to make them look lower.

Canada's vast managed forest lands used to be critical allies in our climate fight and efforts to build a sustainable, carbon neutral forestry economy. That's because these forests used to be healthy enough to absorb the huge amounts of CO2 created by the logging industry's harvests — plus lots more. ...

Unfortunately for all of us, our forests' deep and valuable carbon sink has nearly dried up. Decades of human abuses — from climate disruption to clearcutting — have left them too battered and weakened to even keep up with business-as-usual logging. Put simply: Our continent-spanning managed forests are now being cut down faster than they are growing back. The result has been a rising flood of CO2 pouring out of our managed forests and accumulating in our atmosphere — worsening both the climate and ocean acidification crises. (https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/11/02/opinion/co2-forestry-Canada-...)

(13) In December 2020 , the Trudeau Liberals gave $41.5 to Husky Oil in Newfoundland to keep the "idled West White Rose offshore oil project going, particularly to "protect the option of restarting" in the next year — although there is no guarantee that will happen." Meanwhile Trudeau continues to proclaim his devotion to stopping greenhouse gas emissions. I guess he is just following his strategy before the last election of proclaiming a climate change emergency one day and literally the next day buying the Trans Mountain pipeline. The $41.5 million, which is half the project cost, is in addition to the $325 million the Trudeau government handed the Liberal Newfoundland government to support the Newfoundland oil industry, after Husky stopped construction on the project in April due to the low price of oil. More subsidies poured into a sunsetting industry. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/west-white-rose-1.5...)

(14) The Trudeau Liberals are following the same delay, delay, delay climate plan they have since Chretien in 1993 by refusing to have a target for greenhouse emissions reduction target for 2025 and instead setting the target date as 2030, when they would have been in power for 15 years, which given history is unlikely to happen. In other words, they don't want any target that could hold them accountability for failure in the forseeable future, depsite demands from environmentalists that early target dates are critical to dealing with global warming.

A prominent French-Canadian scientist who chairs France’s High Council on Climate says Canada needs to commit to a 2025 carbon pollution reduction target and strengthen its net-zero advisory body. Le Quéré has led a new scientific analysis of global emissions, published March 3 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change, that found global pollution cuts need to increase tenfold to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. ... The analysis, “Fossil CO2 emissions in the post-COVID era,” points out that Canada is one of 150 countries where emissions increased between 2016, after the Paris Agreement was adopted, and 2019, the year before the pandemic.(https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/03/05/news/wilkinson-not-keen-plan...)

Thu, 2021-05-13 02:49

jerrym

As bad as the problem is with regard to Trudeau's pushing of fossil fuel projects and pipelines, including supporting Line 5's ongoing use, has been up to now, his own government's documents show plans to further large increases in fossil production right past his proposed 40% to 45% cuts that he announced at the Biden Zoom Call and even up to 2050 when he promised Canada would have zero emissions. In other words, since fossil fuels are by far the largest and fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, this gives the lie to the Liberals claim that they will cut emissions by 40% t0 45% by 2030, let alone achieve zero emissions by 2050.

The graphs below are from the Canada Energy Regulator, part of the Trudeau government. The dark dotted lines of the graphs clearly show that both total oil and total natural gas production climbing steadily upward until 2040 and then levelling off at a very high level.

Crude oil production in the Evolving Scenario grows from 4.9 MMb/d in 2019 to 5.8 MMb/d in 2039. In the last decade of the projection, production begins to decline, reaching 5.3 MMb/d by 2050. Growth is largely due to expansions of existing in situ oil sands projects. The price assumptions in EF2020 underpin this growth. The Evolving Scenario assumes that the Brent crude oil price increases from 2019 US$37/bbl in 2020 and plateaus at the 2019 US$55/bbl level from 2026 to 2038, before declining slowly to 2019 US$50/bbl by 2050.

Natural gas production increases in the Evolving Scenario from 15.7 Bcf/d in 2019 to 18.4 Bcf/d in 2040. This growth is driven by increasing LNG exports, which we assume increase to 4.9 Bcf/d by 2039. Most of this production growth comes from the Montney tight gas resource, especially in British Columbia (B.C.). After 2040, natural gas production slowly declines to 16.8 Bcf/d by 2050.

Figure R.7: Total Crude Oil Production Peaks in 2039 and then Declines through 2050 in the Evolving Scenario

Figure R.13: Total Natural Gas Production Peaks in 2040 in the Evolving Scenario and Increases in the Long Term in the Reference Scenario

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/canada-energy-future/2020/res...

Thu, 2021-05-13 02:53

jerrym

The Line 5 dilemma of shutting down this pipeline immediately to avoid potential environmental disasters versus the large economic problems that would create in Ontario and Quebec is just another example illustrating the failure of Trudeau's policies when it comes to climate change. Had we not been expanding fossil fuel production and pipeline capacity, but instead shifting toward renewable energy we would not be trapped in this dilemma.

In their paper "Meeting Canada’s climate commitments requires ending supports for oil and gas production" Angela Carter and Truzaar Dordi, environmental researchers at the University of Waterloo, discuss why the Trudeau climate change policies are failing and what needs to be done to achieve meaningful greenhouse gas emission reductions in Canada, which according to its own data will emit "about 16 percent of the world’s remaining carbon budget." under its current plans to increase oil and fossil fuel production beause much of that production is intended to go overseas. In other words, Canada is a world-leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions when we take into account exports, as well as domestic consumption. As the last post illustrates the Trudeau government plans to increase fossil fuel production far above its current levels despite all its claims that it will cut emissions by 40% to 45% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050, thereby making its proposed cuts impossible to achieve, but instead only further the actual actions of the Trudeau government will greatly increase our emissions.

Below is a summary of Angela Carter and Truzaar Dordi papers on what needs to be done instead of the faux Trudeau emissions reduction plan.

While the Government of Canada has begun to strengthen its climate policies, it does so with “one eye shut” as it continues to avoid the climate consequences of increasing oil and gas production. Rather than constraining oil and gas production as the United States is beginning to do, or committing to phase out fossil fuel production as countries like France, Ireland, Denmark, New Zealand and others are announcing, the Canadian government continues to foster growing oil and gas extraction by providing a range of supports to the sector that is driving up emissions. To begin to meet its emission reduction targets, Canada must withdraw its support from oil and gas extraction and begin a gradual phase out of production. ...

1. Based on the Government of Canada’s anticipated expansion of oil and gas extraction—more oil and gas is expected to be produced in 2050 than in 2019—the oil and gas sector in Canada will still be emitting some 200 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2050, the year by which the federal government has committed to achieve net-zero emissions.

2. Canada’s 2021-2050 oil and gas production would exhaust about 16 percent of the world’s remaining carbon budget. Canada is indeed a “carbon bomb” of global significance.

3. Banking on unproven and expensive solutions like carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, without complementary supply-side restrictions, will not help Canada meet its climate target—particularly when these solutions are designed to facilitate increased fossil fuel production over the next decades.

4. The oil and gas lobby plays a dominating role in Canadian policy, obstructing supply side policy implementation. In the first year since the onset of the Covid pandemic, fossil fuel industries and associations met with government officials a total of 1,224 times, or more than 4.5 times per working day.

5. While the provinces have a lead role in regulating oil and gas, the federal government has a variety of policy options (regulatory, economic, and informational) to begin to constrain expansion and implement a managed phase out of oil and gas production. These include:

prohibiting the leasing of federal lands and waters for fossil fuel production and infrastructure;

implementing a “climate test” on all new fossil fuel projects and removing federal impact review exemptions;

canceling the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline;

divesting federal public investment funds from fossil fuel production; and

removing federal subsidies and public financing that supports fossil fuel exploration, production, or transportation, including federal funding for technologies that delay a transition away from oil and gas.

https://cascadeinstitute.org/one-eye-shut/

Thu, 2021-05-13 19:16

Pondering

We would have a better chance of keeping it open if we come up with a shutdown plan alone with scheduled reductions to cut pressure on the line.

Thu, 2021-05-13 20:08

(Reply to #7) #8

Mighty Middle

jerrym wrote:

Middle, you conveniently left out the fact that the Liberals are right now in court fighting hard to save the Line 5 pipeline.In addition, once again by taking a snippet of what Singh said, you gave a misleading picture of his full statement.

Here is more to give a fuller context to what Singh said.

"We absolutely need to reduce our emissions and create jobs. Line 5 is a project that needs to be replaced. It provides resources that are essential for heating homes and for transport at this time. We want a future where we are investing in a renewable economy, an economy where we are focused on renewable energy, clean energy that we want to build, and on the way to this future there are certain projects that we still need and this is one of them."

So what Singh is saying is not that Line 5 should continue indefinitely, but that we need it in the short term because Ontario and Quebec need this energy until we can build renewable green energy systems to replace it. Eliminating Line 5 would leave Quebec and Ontario facing an energy crisis.

So while Jagmeet Singh supports keeping Line 5 open for the moment for that "transition"

Annamie Paul says we cannot wait - Shut it down NOW.

So NDP saying keep Line 5 open - for the short term. While Green Party & Annamie Paul is siding with Michigan - Shut this pipeline IMMEDIATELY. We cannot wait.

No matter how you spin it, Jagmeet is siding with the pipeline (for now) while Annamie Paul IS NOT

Fri, 2021-05-14 01:32

(Reply to #8) #9

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

jerrym wrote:

Middle, you conveniently left out the fact that the Liberals are right now in court fighting hard to save the Line 5 pipeline.In addition, once again by taking a snippet of what Singh said, you gave a misleading picture of his full statement.

Here is more to give a fuller context to what Singh said.

"We absolutely need to reduce our emissions and create jobs. Line 5 is a project that needs to be replaced. It provides resources that are essential for heating homes and for transport at this time. We want a future where we are investing in a renewable economy, an economy where we are focused on renewable energy, clean energy that we want to build, and on the way to this future there are certain projects that we still need and this is one of them."

So what Singh is saying is not that Line 5 should continue indefinitely, but that we need it in the short term because Ontario and Quebec need this energy until we can build renewable green energy systems to replace it. Eliminating Line 5 would leave Quebec and Ontario facing an energy crisis.

So while Jagmeet Singh supports keeping Line 5 open for the moment for that "transition"

Annamie Paul says we cannot wait - Shut it down NOW.

So NDP saying keep Line 5 open - for the short term. While Green Party & Annamie Paul is siding with Michigan - Shut this pipeline IMMEDIATELY. We cannot wait.

No matter how you spin it, Jagmeet is siding with the pipeline (for now) while Annamie Paul IS NOT

You're the spinner for the Liberals who for thirty years have promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and done the opposite. Their own government documents from the Canadian Energy Regulator show growing fossil fuel production, reaching a peak in 2039 for natural gas and 2040 for oil and then leveling off at these high levels with only a minuscule dip through 2050. In other words, not only is there no way Trudeau will achieve his planned 40 to 45% cuts by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050, they, like all previous Liberal governments, have never intended to cut emissions. Instead, they have attempted to expand pipelines and production capacity through the Trans Moutain, Line 3, Keystone, Energy East, Frontier Mine, and Ontario-Saguenay pipelines and through $15 billion in subsidies to oil field production making Canadians ever more dependent on fossil fuels. The only reason they have failed in some of these attempts is because other governments or financial interests have blocked their attempts or refused to invest in them because they weren't economically, even with heavy federal Liberal subsidies.

If you think the Greens can win more support in Quebec and Ontario by immediately cutting off a large percentage of oil that Ontario are Quebec are dependent on through this pipeline, I recommend that you tell your friends in the Liberal government to reverse their opposition to shutting down Line 5, regardless of the immediate consequences and see how many voters will support that as much of these provinces economies grind to a halt. You know damn well what would happen. We need to transition out of this dilemma as quickly as possilbe without immediately shutting down a large part of the economy immediately. This is what Singh was saying when you used a snippet of quote to misinform people as to what he meant. We didn't have to be in this position if the Liberals had started this transition out of fossil fuels in the 28 years since Chretien. As my nineteen year old son said if we had cut fossil fuel production 3% a year over this we would be 84% of the way to eliminating fossil fuels completely. Instead we have more fossil fuel production and plans for even more over the next 30 years according to the Liberals plans, giving us highly problematic choices to make now.

I agree with Pondering that we need a phased shutdown plan for Line 5, as well as for other pipelines so that we can wean Canada off fossil fuels relatively quickly, not a catastrophic immediate economic crisis shutdown or a let's just keep on pumping more oil through Line 5 and all our oil fields and other pipelines, including the Liberals bought and paid for Trans Mountain pipeline. Since the Liberal government already owns Trans Mountain, they wouldn't even have to negotiate with a private sector owner to shut it down right now. You're all for that, right.

That's the dilemma the Liberals have put us in over the last 30 years and that they intend to continue doing if they stay in power over the next 30 years. In case you missed the graphs of your own Liberal government's Canada Energy Regulator that clearly show Liberal plans I'll post it below again. You can't deny that they tell us the Liberal plan is to grow the fossil fuel sector way above current levels right through 2050. It kind of reminds you of the Liberals announcing a climate emergency in June 2019 just before the election and the next day buying the Trans Mountain pipeline in order to triple pipeline capacity to the west coast, in terms of telling us where the Liberals are really going.

If I have misinterpreted your position on this issue, you can become an advocate pushing for having your friends in the Liberal party change their 30 year pattern of saying they are cutting emissions while increasing and further subsidizing fossil fuel production and pipelines. Good luck with that.

Once again here is the Liberal government plan to massively increase oil and natural gas production according to the government's own documents in case you ignored them. Considering the urgency of your comments so far, I am sure you are strongly opposed to their plans. (The black dots represent total annual oil and natural production in Canada).

Crude oil production in the Evolving Scenario grows from 4.9 MMb/d in 2019 to 5.8 MMb/d in 2039. In the last decade of the projection, production begins to decline, reaching 5.3 MMb/d by 2050. Growth is largely due to expansions of existing in situ oil sands projects. The price assumptions in EF2020 underpin this growth. The Evolving Scenario assumes that the Brent crude oil price increases from 2019 US$37/bbl in 2020 and plateaus at the 2019 US$55/bbl level from 2026 to 2038, before declining slowly to 2019 US$50/bbl by 2050.

Natural gas production increases in the Evolving Scenario from 15.7 Bcf/d in 2019 to 18.4 Bcf/d in 2040. This growth is driven by increasing LNG exports, which we assume increase to 4.9 Bcf/d by 2039. Most of this production growth comes from the Montney tight gas resource, especially in British Columbia (B.C.). After 2040, natural gas production slowly declines to 16.8 Bcf/d by 2050.

Figure R.7: Total Crude Oil Production Peaks in 2039 and then Declines through 2050 in the Evolving Scenario

Figure R.13: Total Natural Gas Production Peaks in 2040 in the Evolving Scenario and Increases in the Long Term in the Reference Scenario

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/canada-energy-future/2020/res...

Fri, 2021-05-14 11:20

#10

Geoff

Since the Green Party wants the pipeline shut down immediately, they must have a plan to replace the potential energy shortage immediately. Does anyone know what the plan is?

Fri, 2021-05-14 16:29

(Reply to #10) #11

Mighty Middle

jerrym wrote:

You're the spinner for the Liberals who for thirty years have promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and done the opposite.

We are talking Annamie Paul & the position of the Green Party. The only person bringing up and talking about the Liberals is jerrym.

Can you trying sticking to the topic at hand? Which is the different policy positions on Line 5 between the NDP and Green Party.

Sat, 2021-05-15 12:23

#12

jerrym

ETA: Middle, when you bring up a topic, expect to get challenged, especially when you take a one sentence quote out of context, as you have done so many times before. In order to give the full context I had to fully quote Singh, and then discuss why we face the dilemma that we are in because for thirty years the Conservatives, who at least said what they were going to do in increasing fossil fuel production, and the Liberals who under Chretien, Martin and Trudeau promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing them greatly. Not only that, but the Trudeau government's own documents from its Canada Energy Regulator agency show they plan to continue to increase oil and natural gas production right through 2050, once again giving lie to their promises to reduce emissions. In order to understand where we are with Line 5, I had to show how we arrived here. You haven't challenged a single fact that I stated on how we ended up in this position because you can't, as the facts don't change.

The Liberals, since they are the government, are the only party in Canada that can immediately agree to shut down Line 5, but they won't because it would cost them dearly in the next election. They are not even ending Trans Mountain but instead tripling its capacity. They could stop it today since they own this $18 billion (purchase price plus latest construction costs estimates) white elephant boondoggle, but they won't even do that, though they keep promising to transition us away from fossil fuels. "Researchers at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby recently published a study looking at the economic viability of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and found the project could cost Canadians upwards of $18 billion. In the study, researchers take into account the impacts of weaker oil markets, Canada’s new climate plan, the risks posed by the Supreme Court’s decision on carbon tax and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline." (https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/trans-mountain-could-lose-119-bill...) Are you in favour of shutting it down, since it is not yet carrying more oil yet and its shutdown would have far less immediate impact on the economy?

The Liberals have been in power for 19 of the 28 years since they first promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions. You need to get your party to end its tragic addiction to fossil fuels and the $15 billion in annual subsidies they provide to this industry. But you don't seem interested in discussing that.

We now need a relatively quick transition away from fossil fuels because the Liberals and Conservatives have done the exact opposite of what needs to be done and we therefore have little time left to do so. What Singh is saying is we need to transition quickly, but do it in a responsible manner that keeps us from doing major damage to the economy. The Canadian government cutting off the Line 5 supply immediately will create a voter backlash from the many in Ontario and Quebec greatly hurt by this, so that will only backfire in terms of getting more support for the transition away from fossil fuels. However, the Liberals have not even announced any plan to even wean us off this Line 5 oil over time even in the distant future.

You know this because you know what the consequences of a Canadian government would be of shutting down much of the fossil fuel needed to run Ontario and Quebec without any transition period, but you are more interested in playing political games than in actually discussing how to solve the problem, which is something you have done so often in the past. If you are really interested in dealing with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, its amazing how you never get around to examining your Liberal party's role in putting us where we are.

I have discussed how we got here and how we are in a dilemma no matter which way we choose because the Liberal and Conservative governments did not even begin to wean us off fossil fuels. Because of the choices they made there will be pain no matter how we go about dealing with Line 5 and all the other pipelines and fossil fuel production. End them we must and quickly but with care for those who suffer the consequences. You are not offering anything as a solution, just playing a misquote game, so I'll end this thread here for me. So you can keep on projecting onto anyone you want, except your Liberals, that they are the problem on this, as you have done on many other issues. I also don't believe in getting in never-ending loops where the same thing is repeated in slightly different form again and again and again.