‘Checking the Boxes’ in Federal Climate Plan Won’t Deliver on Canada’s Paris Targets, Researchers Warn – The Energy Mix: Unlike most of the climate community analysts and advocates who’ve
had a hand in the federal strategy, Robertson and Moore take issue with a
plan that emphasizes the economic opportunities in an effective climate
response over the depth of the emergency humanity faces. “That is the
goal,” they write. “Not to be left behind. To be able to compete in a
changing world. To be a global economic leader. Nowhere is there mention
of a crisis nor a situation that requires an emergency footing, an
emergency response.”

On that basis, they conclude that the updated climate plan the
government released in December assumes “there is climate change, not a
climate emergency,” that “economic growth is the overarching goal even
for climate policy”, that market players will solve the problem given
the right price signals to respond to, and the fossil industry “must be
protected and supported” through the adoption of a “‘fossil first’
climate action plan instead of a ‘climate first’ approach.” It envisions
a new, low-carbon era that strengthens Canada’s existing “export-led,
extraction-based economic model”, while assuming the country will become
a hydrogen superpower.

“It is this problematic orientation together with a set of inadequate
climate initiatives that will lead inevitably to more missed emission
reduction targets and broken climate promises,” they write.

‘Checking the Boxes’ in Federal Climate Plan Won’t Deliver on Canada’s Paris Targets, Researchers Warn – The Energy Mix: Unlike most of the climate community analysts and advocates who’ve
had a hand in the federal strategy, Robertson and Moore take issue with a
plan that emphasizes the economic opportunities in an effective climate
response over the depth of the emergency humanity faces. “That is the
goal,” they write. “Not to be left behind. To be able to compete in a
changing world. To be a global economic leader. Nowhere is there mention
of a crisis nor a situation that requires an emergency footing, an
emergency response.”On that basis, they conclude that the updated climate plan the
government released in December assumes “there is climate change, not a
climate emergency,” that “economic growth is the overarching goal even
for climate policy”, that market players will solve the problem given
the right price signals to respond to, and the fossil industry “must be
protected and supported” through the adoption of a “‘fossil first’
climate action plan instead of a ‘climate first’ approach.” It envisions
a new, low-carbon era that strengthens Canada’s existing “export-led,
extraction-based economic model”, while assuming the country will become
a hydrogen superpower.“It is this problematic orientation together with a set of inadequate
climate initiatives that will lead inevitably to more missed emission
reduction targets and broken climate promises,” they write.Read More

Lauren Dobson-Hughes: Are we actually a country?: Politicians weren’t straightforward with us: Canada is middle of the
line for global vaccine supply. But they told Canadians we should be
first in line (prompting other politicians to claim that we were in
fact, at the very back of the line, which seriously? Try being Mali and
get back to me).

Of all 198 countries in the world, Canada should be first in line for the single hottest global commodity? For the love of every single Timbit in the country, why?

Was
it our oversized purchasing power? (We have none.) Our willingness to
pay far beyond market price? (We weren’t.) Because we are dominant as a
consumer of global pharmaceutical products? (We are not.) Or is it …
because we’re really nice and have this awfully outdated impression of
our importance on the global scene? (Bingo!) There is no rational
measure by which Canada ought to come first.

Lauren Dobson-Hughes: Are we actually a country?: Politicians weren’t straightforward with us: Canada is middle of the
line for global vaccine supply. But they told Canadians we should be
first in line (prompting other politicians to claim that we were in
fact, at the very back of the line, which seriously? Try being Mali and
get back to me). Of all 198 countries in the world, Canada should be first in line for the single hottest global commodity? For the love of every single Timbit in the country, why? Was
it our oversized purchasing power? (We have none.) Our willingness to
pay far beyond market price? (We weren’t.) Because we are dominant as a
consumer of global pharmaceutical products? (We are not.) Or is it …
because we’re really nice and have this awfully outdated impression of
our importance on the global scene? (Bingo!) There is no rational
measure by which Canada ought to come first.Read More

EXCLUSIVE: New Carbon Capture Tax Credit Would Drive Higher Emissions, Could Mislead Investors: The fossil industry and its allies have been intensifying their push
for carbon capture (CCUS) subsidies, with Alberta Premier Jason Kenney calling
for C$30 billion in federal largesse over 10 years. In an email
Tuesday, Ian Cameron, press secretary to Natural Resources Minister
Seamus O’Regan, said carbon capture technology “creates jobs, lowers
emissions, and increases our competitiveness. It’s an important part of
our government’s plan to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 and we are
working with all provinces, including Alberta, to keep Canada at the
forefront of this promising technology.”

But the signature tax measure that is generating much of the hype, the Section 45Q tax credit
[pdf] named for the relevant section of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code,
creates an incentive for power plant operators to emit more carbon,
while giving investors a false picture of projects’ viability, said
David Schlissel, a Massachusetts-based consultant associated with the
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

EXCLUSIVE: New Carbon Capture Tax Credit Would Drive Higher Emissions, Could Mislead Investors: The fossil industry and its allies have been intensifying their push
for carbon capture (CCUS) subsidies, with Alberta Premier Jason Kenney calling
for C$30 billion in federal largesse over 10 years. In an email
Tuesday, Ian Cameron, press secretary to Natural Resources Minister
Seamus O’Regan, said carbon capture technology “creates jobs, lowers
emissions, and increases our competitiveness. It’s an important part of
our government’s plan to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 and we are
working with all provinces, including Alberta, to keep Canada at the
forefront of this promising technology.”But the signature tax measure that is generating much of the hype, the Section 45Q tax credit
[pdf] named for the relevant section of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code,
creates an incentive for power plant operators to emit more carbon,
while giving investors a false picture of projects’ viability, said
David Schlissel, a Massachusetts-based consultant associated with the
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).Read More

Canada’s Opposition to Line 5 Closure Flies in the Face of Science, Courts Disaster, Ex-IJC Chair Warns – The Energy Mix: Canada’s position that it’s “Line 5 or bust”
also goes against well-established facts about what will happen
if—when—the pipeline literally busts open under the Straits of Mackinac,
Pollack says.

And it is only a matter of time before that happens, she adds: “The
danger of a breach of this age-compromised pipeline spanning a major
shipping lane in the world’s largest freshwater body increases with
every passing day.”

Although Pollack makes clear that she writes as a private citizen,
she does invoke her nine years as head of the IJC—an entity whose advice
was, and remains, “invariably based upon science and thoughtful
negotiations.”

In light of that history, she says, she would expect both countries
to acknowledge certain facts. First in that lineup? That examination of
Line 5 “shows thinning of the pipeline walls and a history of breaks in
the lakebed anchors essential to keeping the pipeline tightly fixed to
the lake bottom.” Further, she adds, “a current jury-rigged system of
bottomland attachments allows this bent and corroded pipeline to flex
and float in ways it was never designed to tolerate—stresses that
intensify the risk of a breach.”

Canada’s Opposition to Line 5 Closure Flies in the Face of Science, Courts Disaster, Ex-IJC Chair Warns – The Energy Mix: Canada’s position that it’s “Line 5 or bust”
also goes against well-established facts about what will happen
if—when—the pipeline literally busts open under the Straits of Mackinac,
Pollack says.And it is only a matter of time before that happens, she adds: “The
danger of a breach of this age-compromised pipeline spanning a major
shipping lane in the world’s largest freshwater body increases with
every passing day.”Although Pollack makes clear that she writes as a private citizen,
she does invoke her nine years as head of the IJC—an entity whose advice
was, and remains, “invariably based upon science and thoughtful
negotiations.” In light of that history, she says, she would expect both countries
to acknowledge certain facts. First in that lineup? That examination of
Line 5 “shows thinning of the pipeline walls and a history of breaks in
the lakebed anchors essential to keeping the pipeline tightly fixed to
the lake bottom.” Further, she adds, “a current jury-rigged system of
bottomland attachments allows this bent and corroded pipeline to flex
and float in ways it was never designed to tolerate—stresses that
intensify the risk of a breach.”Read More