Climate Change > Australia's Coal Mines Booming; Russia to Supply India With More Coal; EV Fire Risks Not Being Addressed

..

Australia is making the most out of the COAL BOOM

16 Oct, 2021 06:49

©  Kelly Lacy / Pexels

Australia continues to back its coal industry as many Western nations have turned their back on the dirtiest fossil fuel, approving a third coal mine extension in a month and bolstering partnerships for long-term coal exports.

We already know the demand is there, with China requiring increasing coal to bridge its fuel demand gap, but Australia is one of the few remaining nations outside of Asia to continue to back coal as a major energy source. 

Earlier this month, Australia approved its third coal mine extension within a month. In September, Environment Minister Sussan Ley approved extensions for the Whitehaven Coal and Wollonggong Coal mines. The latest extension approval was for the Glencore Mangoola thermal coal mine in New South Wales, allowing it to continue production for eight more years, mining approximately 52 million tons of coal.

But it’s not just other countries that are putting pressure on Australia to join them in curbing its coal production. In May, a ruling from Australia’s high court encouraged the country’s environment minister to reconsider coal mine expansions due to the obligation the ministry has to the Australian childrens’ future, as well as the general impact of coal production and use on climate change. 

While environmental activists and international energy organizations are less than happy with Australia’s ongoing support for coal, many Australians back the decision to expand mines because of their contribution to the country’s employment. Around 400 workers are currently employed at Glencore, and the expansion will add 100 construction jobs.

Australia is the world’s biggest exporter of coal, with strong links to the Asian market. To date, Australia has made no pledge to reduce carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050, unlike many of its Western counterparts. Many countries across Europe and North America have vowed to rapidly reduce carbon emissions, an aim that is expected to be reinforced in the upcoming COP26 climate summit in Glasgow this month, which Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison will attend. 

However, shortly after the announcement of the third expansion project, Australia’s resources minister proposed the establishment of a state-run $180-billion lending option for the coal industry, with the stipulation that borrowers support a net-zero carbon emissions target. This strategy comes as banks and insurers become less willing to lend to the dying coal sector. 

Australia’s dependence on coal is not surprising considering its close proximity to the Asian market, where coal demand remains high. Several Asian countries, most notably China and India with their ever-expanding populations, continue to rely on coal, as well as oil and gas, to meet their national energy demand. 

“While China unambiguously needs as much coal as it can get its hands on to avert a [fourth-quarter] slowdown due to the tyranny of rolling power shortages, geopolitical tensions with Australia have waylaid the most convenient source of high-calorific coal from Down Under,” Vishnu Varathan, head of economics and strategy for Asia and Oceania treasury department at Mizuho, stated of China’s reliance on coal imports.

However, in late 2020, China ended its coal imports from Australia following difficult trade relations, namely Australia’s support for an international inquiry into China’s management of the Covid-19 pandemic. Coal is Australia’s third-largest export to China, a country that accounts for 32.6% of all Australian exports, with Australia exporting more to China than it imports. 

After reportedly telling utilities and steel mills to stop all Australian coal imports, China began to import its coal from regional exporters Indonesia, Mongolia, and Russia. India has apparently been buying discounted coal that was left stranded in Chinese customs following the falling out between China and Australia. In recent months, Indian cement makers and sponge iron plants have sought to boost supplies with this low-cost option. 

The Chinese stockpile of Australian coal, and its willingness to sell the supply at a discount, suggests the dedication it had to cutting trade ties with Australia. However, the energy crisis experienced in recent months has finally proved too much for China to continue holding a grudge. Fuel shortages and high energy costs have led the Chinese government to resume Australian coal imports. This month, China released Australian coal from bonded warehouses in addition to receiving 450,000 tons of Australian coal cargoes at the beginning of the month.

During the time that China refused imports, Australia did not just simply wait for China to come running back, rather it fostered its relationship with India. Australia held its first joint working group meeting on coal and mines with India this September to encourage greater participation in Australia’s ongoing coal production. Australia identifies India as a key market for some of its lower-grade coal, with prices significantly undercutting those of the premium coal products imported by China.

With little commitment to net-zero aims, ongoing support for coal plant expansion projects despite a high court interjection, and ongoing trade links with high-demand countries across Asia, it seems unlikely that Australia will curb its coal production or make it more carbon-friendly any time soon, despite international pressure to do so.  

Russia to boost coal supplies to India amid global power crunch

17 Oct, 2021 13:33

© Sputnik / Aleksandr Kryazhev

Russia’s Energy Ministry signed an agreement this week with India’s Steel Industry Ministry aimed at increasing Russian coking coal supply to India to 40 million tons per year.

The deal was inked at the Russian Energy Week Forum, held from October 13-15 in Moscow.

According to Russian Energy Minister Nikolay Shulginov, Russia currently supplies around eight million tons of all types of coal to the South Asian country.

The agreement is also meant to stimulate enterprises in Russia and India in the development of coal deposits, the development of coal logistics and infrastructure, the promotion of R&D in production, as well as education and training for the coal industry.

The world’s third-largest coal importer, India, is currently struggling with coal shortages. Coal accounts for around 70% of the nation’s electricity generation. Most of India’s coal-fired power plants have critically low levels of inventory amid growing electricity demand.

A widening gap between soaring international and domestic coal prices has also seen imports decline sharply in recent months.

==========================================================================================

Moving to a green economy at the pace of some countries is absurdly reckless. 

‘Naive is an understatement’: German safety official tells RT

that risk of electric vehicle fires is ‘completely unaddressed’

24 Oct, 2021 17:33

Firefighters try to extinguish a fire at a bus depot in Stuttgart, Germany, September 30, 2021 © AFP / Andreas Rosar

It's hard to see how this is improving air quality

A series of fires involving electric buses is calling into question Germany’s reliance on these zero-emissions vehicles. “The risk of these fires,” safety regulator Heinrich Duepmann told RT, “is completely unaddressed.”

Europe is experiencing a green transport boom. Sales have quadrupled since 2018, and one in every ten new vehicles sold on the continent is now fully electric, a share that rises to four in ten when hybrid vehicles are taken into account. In Germany, where the Greens are in talks about joining a coalition government, the number of electric buses doubled last year compared to 2019.

The switchover from diesel to electricity has not been entirely smooth. Three bus depots were gutted by fire this year alone, with the most recent in Stuttgart last month destroying 25 buses and sending a column of smoke towering over the city.

The fires prompted the cities of Munich and Stuttgart to suspend use of these battery-powered buses, and Heinrich Duepmann of Germany’s Electricity Consumer Protection Association told RT that he shares their concerns ​​– not just about buses, but electric vehicles in general.

“The risk of these fires, including in other locations such as bicycle basements or large apartment blocks, is completely unaddressed,” he said. “Also, insurance companies are not yet tackling the issue.”

The lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles can catch fire if damaged, or in some cases during charging or spontaneously. Lithium burns ferociously on contact with air, and once ablaze, these fires can be extremely difficult to put out. While burning, lithium-ion batteries have been shown to emit toxic quantities of fluoride gas.

Aside from the fire risk, Deupmann is also concerned that as private electric vehicles become more popular, the country’s electricity infrastructure is “completely undeveloped” to facilitate widespread fast charging.

“People have been too naive about this,” he said, adding that “naive is an understatement.”

Environmentalism - The Land-Locking of Alberta Oil and Gas

..

Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage in a file photo. (The Canadian Press/Greg Fulmes)

Alberta Inquiry Says it Has Confirmed ‘Significant’ Foreign Funding

of Anti-Energy Campaign

By Noé Chartier 

Updated: October 22, 2021

The key findings of the final report of an Alberta government-commissioned inquiry into campaigns against the province’s energy industry says it confirms the existence of “well-funded foreign interests” spreading “misinformation” to landlock Alberta’s oil and gas sector.

The report, compiled by forensic and restructuring accountant Steve Allan, was submitted to the provincial government in July and was made public on Oct. 21.

Announcing the release of the report, Energy Minister Sonya Savage said Albertans “have the right to be upset” about the campaigns that have helped counter fossil fuel projects and led to negative consequences for the economy.

“People lost their jobs, businesses went under, families were hurt, government revenues from royalties were impacted. We lost billions of dollars in royalties,” she said at a press conference on Oct. 21.

The report says that between 2003 and 2019, Canadian-based environmental initiatives received $1.28 billion in foreign funding, while noting that the estimate is likely understated. Of that, $925 million was used by Canadian charities for “environmental initiatives,” $352 million was used to fund “Canadian-based environmental initiatives” that remained in the United States such as anti-pipeline campaigns, and $54.1 million was used specifically for “anti-Alberta resource development activity.”

It notes that environmental organizations campaigning against Alberta’s oil and gas sector appear to work in concert to advance an agenda, and that they act “like an industry,” attracting sources of funding and employing large numbers of personnel.

“While many ENGOs [environmental non-government organizations] are driven by honest concerns, the commissioner found they are also focused on their own financial sustainability, which is ensured by adapting to emerging markets and trends and jumping from cause to cause,” a document highlighting the inquiry’s findings says.

Savage said the report “shines a blinding light on the broader movement and the vast amount of foreign funding that is crossing the Canadian border, often untraced.”

The inquiry was launched by the United Conservative Party government in 2019.

Reactions

The inquiry encountered a range of criticism and obstacles, from environmentalists trying to shut it down altogether, to questions regarding the expenses incurred and the delay in submitting the final report.

“Did we need a multi-million dollar inquiry to discover that there were ENGOs who were opposed to the oil sands?” wrote Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt in a tweet.

Some of the criticism from environmental organizations filtered through as members of the media asked Savage questions during the press conference.

One reporter asked Savage if “this whole endeavour [was] a mistake,” referring to the inquiry costing $3.5 million and “finding $54 million in foreign funding that was put towards these anti-Alberta energy campaigns.”

Allan writes in his report that he wasn’t able to pinpoint precisely the portion of the $1.28 billion in foreign funding that went toward anti-Alberta energy campaigns. The $54 million was singled out since it was found by the inquiry to be earmarked specifically for “anti-Alberta resource development activity.”

“Frankly, I’m surprised that any grant would blatantly say it’s for an anti-Alberta energy campaign. I’m surprised that any money would cross the border being that blatant,” Savage responded to the reporter.

Another reporter remarked that the inquiry did not find illegal activities and complained that Alberta “spent all this time and money investigating people who are doing legal activities, exercising their rights to free speech.”

A different reporter followed up on that point, asking, “Are you against them doing that [exercising free speech]? Would you like people stop doing that?”

Savage said in a democracy people have the right to express their views, but she said the report is focused on foreign funding that influences Canadian political and regulatory decisions.

“What the report found was a co-ordinated campaign that ultimately targeted influencing political and regulatory change, using foreign funding. It is foreign funding, going after domestic processes and domestic policy and that’s the real concern,” she said, adding that the “multi-billion-dollar foundations in the United States aren’t concerned with the day-to-day life of Albertans.”

Most of the money from the USA comes from ENGOs that are funded by USA's big oil. The idea is to landlock Alberta oil so as to make it harder to get to US and Pacific markets. This increases the demand and the price of American oil as well as increasing their market share.

How America is Strangling the Canadian Oil Industry, and We're Helping Them

Talk About ‘Collusion’: How Foreign-Backed Anti-Oil Activists Infiltrated Canada’s Government

Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds in Climate Change Circles

Millions in Foreign Funds Spent in 2015 Fed Election to Defeat Harper, Report

Allan’s report also addressed concerns about free speech.

“Nothing in this Report should be taken as in any way seeking to limit these important rights and freedoms,” as it relates to opposition to Alberta’s oil and gas sector, the report said.

Allan noted, however, that open public debate has been stifled by activism and media bias.

“The environmental movement can be given credit for raising the issue of climate change on the national agenda. But I am concerned the discussion has become polarized and paralyzed to the extent it is nearly impossible to raise questions or make suggestions that don’t align with the agenda of the ENGOs, which is often supported by the media,” he wrote.

Reacting to the report, Greenpeace Canada said the inquiry found no instance of wrongdoing on the part of the campaigners, and criticized the inquiry.

“Even when it makes powerful interests uncomfortable, we will press on alongside Indigenous leaders and front-line communities, and with the backing of our supporters—no matter what intimidation tactics are thrown our way,” Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist for the group, said in a statement.

“The Inquiry’s findings that Greenpeace Canada has engaged in ‘Anti-Alberta’ activities does not follow legal requirements, ignores scientific evidence, and could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and on the meaningful process of debate in a so-called democratic and free society,” added Ali Naraghi, legal counsel for Greenpeace.

The inquiry report in fact does not say any group is involved in “anti-Alberta activities,” but refers to “anti-Alberta resource initiatives.”

“I have also made it clear throughout my Report that I do not find that participation in an anti-Alberta energy campaign is in any way improper or constitutes conduct that should in any way be impugned, nor do I find that it indicates a party is ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Albertan,” Allan wrote.

Tim McMillan, president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the inquiry shed light on the foreign-funded campaigns which have cancelled billions in revenue and thousands of Alberta jobs.

“For years, the energy conversation has been driven by activist organizations who have influenced energy policies that are today contributing to rising energy costs for Canadians, as well as energy shortages for our trading partners around the world,” said McMillan in a statement released to The Epoch Times.

Environmental Threats Remote and Invisible Meant to Create Fear - Patrick Moore

..

Environmental Threats Based on Invisible, Remote Subjects to Create Fear:

Greenpeace Co-founder

BY ISAAC TEO

May 22, 2021 Updated: May 23, 2021

The co-founder of Greenpeace says in his new book that alleged environmental catastrophes and threats are based on subjects that are either invisible or extremely remote in order to create fear, forcing people to rely on experts to tell them the truth.

“It dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, like CO2 and radiation, or extremely remote, like polar bears and coral reefs,” wrote Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, in his book titled “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.”

“Thus, most people have no way of determining the truth of these claims of alleged catastrophes and doomsday threats. Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists—all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject—to tell them the truth.”

Moore, also a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, said he left Greenpeace after 15 years when he realized the movement had taken “a sharp turn to the political left.”

During a webinar on May 20, he said the main purpose of writing the book was to show that those narratives are “just a big hoax.”

Language is manipulated to invoke negativity, fear, and compliance in order for proponents of environmental catastrophes to push their narratives, Moore said.

“A classic example of propaganda is ‘dirty oil,’” he noted. “That’s how we grow our food—in dirt. So what’s wrong with dirty? But they’re not using it to mean dirt as in soil. They’re using it to mean ‘dirty rotten scoundrel.’ In other words, it’s purely an epithet—a negative epithet.”

Moore said that kind of wording has nothing to do with scientific description or the actual quality of oil. Rather, it’s an example of a propaganda technique where a normal concept is merged with an undesirable idea in order to make something seem bad.

“Much of propaganda is about associating negative words with normal words, and therefore turning them into a negative,” he said.

“This welcomes the opportunity to invent narratives such as the claim that ‘CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing climate emergency,’” he writes in his book.

But Moore said the amount of CO2 has been declining in the global atmosphere for at least half a billion years based on historical records.

In his testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight in 2014, Moore argued that although there is some correlation, there is little evidence to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia.

“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” he testified at the time.

The book also addresses the issue of coral reefs reported to be dying allegedly due to climate change warming the oceans. Moore explains in the book that the most diverse coral reefs are found in the world’s warmest oceans, in a roughly triangular-shaped region in the western Pacific Ocean known as the Coral Triangle. The region extends from the Philippine Archipelago in the north to the Indonesia Archipelago in the south and extends east to the seas around the Solomon Islands.

The Coral Triangle has the world’s “highest biodiversity of coral, with more than 600 species, which is 76 percent of all coral species,” the book states. It adds that the region also has the “highest biodiversity of reef fish, with 2,000 species, which is 37 percent of all reef-fish species,” and is “home to six of the world’s seven species of marine turtles.”

“In other words, they found no evidence that there is anywhere in the world’s oceans that indicates a decline in species richness due to warmer ocean water,” Moore writes, referring to a research paper on global marine species diversity and the factors that influence higher or lower diversity.

“They found the opposite, that the warmest waters in the world have the highest species diversity for every taxonomic class of marine life.”

His book, “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom,” also seeks to dispel what Moore calls the “unified theory of scare stories.” They include the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the North Pacific, which has a high concentration of microplastic debris and is said to be twice the size of Texas; polar bears being threatened with extinction due to climate change; and ocean acidification.

The book is published by Ecosense Environmental Inc. and is available on Amazon. (Click on Image).

What Can You Believe Anymore? Not So Much Apparently

In my persistent quest for the truth, I have been persuaded that

almost nothing is ever as it seems anymore.

In today's news from Dubai comes a report of a man from Kerala, India, who applied on a mechanical engineering job in the Gulf State. The email he received from his prospective employer was astonishing for its candidness. It has since gone viral:

Gulf News - Shaheen Bagh is the epicentre of ongoing mass demonstrations against India’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act.

The act makes it more difficult for Muslims to become citizens of India:

The Shaheen Bagh protest is an ongoing 24/7 sit-in peaceful protest, led by women, that began with the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in both houses of Parliament on 11 December 2019 and the ensuing police intervention against students at Jamia Millia Islamia who were opposing the Amendment. Mainly Muslim women, the protesters at Shaheen Bagh, since 15 December 2019, have blocked a major highway[a] in New Delhi using non-violent resistance for 43 days now as of 26 January 2020. It has now become the longest ongoing continuous protest against CAA-NRC-NPR. -Wikipedia

Abdulla S.S., 23, who had applied for a mechanical engineer’s position in Dubai said he is still reeling from the shock of the email he got from UAE-based Indian expat Jayant Gokhale in response to his job application last week.

Rs 1000 is about $14 USD; free food and tea, sweets, are a pretty tempting offer especially for an unemployed Indian. 

The question is: 'is this going on elsewhere, or is it a one-off event?'  

This week in Vancouver, the extradition trial of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Hauwei, and the daughter of the founder of the spectacularly successful Chinese telecom company, got underway with a couple dozen protesters at the courts to support Meng. 

It turns out that they were hired to be there and, at least some, didn't know why they were even there until the last minute. 

Some of the participants have since alleged they were paid to take part in the protest.

Ken Bonson told the Star a friend recruited her and later deposited $150 into her account. At the courthouse, a woman she had never met before named “Joey” supplied them with posters, Bonson said. After learning more about Meng and the allegations against her, Bonson said she wished she had never taken part and felt “ashamed and embarrassed.” The Star has since spoken to the friend, who denies being paid or paying anyone to take part in the protest. The man refused to go on record for an interview. He said he did not know anyone named “Joey.”

Julia Hackstaff, an actor, wrote on Facebook that she was the victim of a “filthy cheap scam.” She said someone had contacted her Sunday evening asking if she wanted to be a background performer in a production for $100. When she arrived, she said, she received ambiguous instructions to hold a sign. When reporters approached the group and started asking questions, she thought it was all part of the production but quickly realized “everything was ‘too real.’

“I left after 5 minutes of being there.” - The Star

Another reason to suspect protests.

There is no reason to suspect the greatest protest of the 21st century - the Yellow Vest protest in France that has been going on for almost a year and a half, but, it might be worth investigating anyway.

But, perhaps the most disturbing example of paid protesting has to do with indigenous people of British Columbia and Alberta being used as pawns by American environmentalists, some of whom are sponsored by David Rockefeller (The Rockefellers were founders and owners of Standard Oil), to isolate Alberta oil and gas and keep it from reaching tidewater. This ensures Americans can buy it at ultra cheap prices, and they can't take markets that might otherwise be open to American oil and gas.

A left-wing lobby group in San Francisco wired $55,000 to the bank account of an Indian chief in Northern Alberta, paying him to oppose the oilsands.

The same IRS disclosure shows Tides Foundation (started by philanthropist Drummond Pike) made 25 different payments to Canadian anti-oilsands activists in a single year, totaling well over a million dollars. And that’s just one U.S. lobby group. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund out of New York, spends $7 million a year in Canada, with an explicit campaign strategy of fomenting Aboriginal unrest, through protests and lawsuits. - Toronto Sun    Alberta's Oil Not the Only Thing That's Dirty

The Rockefellers are known as great philanthropists, and they were. However, one has to wonder how much of their philanthropy was self-serving. 

Drummond Pike, started Tides Foundation, then Tides Center, then Tides Canada. Much of Pike's work was involved in supporting progressive politicians in both Canada and the  USA:

Pike along with George Soros and other Democracy Alliance members John R. Hunting; Paul Rudd (co-founder of Adaptive Analytics); Pat Stryker; Nicholas Hanauer; ex-Clinton administration official Rob Stein; Gail Furman; real estate developer Robert Bowditch; Pioneer Hybrid International-heir and congressional candidate Scott Wallace; Susie Tompkins Buell; real estate developer Albert Dwoskin; and Taco Bell-heir Rob McKay, funded the Secretary of State Project, an American non-profit, 527 political action committee focused on electing reform-minded progressive Secretaries of State in battleground states, who typically oversee the election process. The Alliance was critical in getting California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie re-elected. - Wikipedia

See also:

Talk About ‘Collusion’: How Foreign-Backed Anti-Oil Activists Infiltrated Canada’s Government   Or, how wealthy American environmentalists bought the Canadian government and destroyed Alberta's Oil Sands industry

How America is Strangling the Canadian Oil Industry, and We're Helping Them

Anti-pipeline campaign was planned, intended, and foreign-funded: Vivian Krause

Understanding the Incredible Power of Canada's Environmental Movement

This astonishing 32 minute video puts much of the environmental movement into perspective, from their roots, to their funding, to their purposes, to their results. It's nothing like you think it is. The story is very well documented and needs to be viewed by everyone with an interest in 1st Nations, politics, the environment, and the economy.

Comments late in the video dovetail nicely with articles posted on this blog previously, such as: 

USA's Own Climate Change Rep Ominously Threatens US http://northwoodsministries.blogspot.com/2016/02/usas-own-climate-change-rep-ominously.html

Please take a half hour and educate yourself as to what is really going on. You will be astonished!

Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds in Climate Change Circles

CHRIS NELSON, FOR THE CALGARY HERALD

Port Metro Vancouver is the largest coal shipper in North America. Columnist Chris Nelson ponders

whether India could charge the B.C. city for its environmental impact. POSTMEDIA

Wonder if I can pick up a fat finder’s fee from some on-the-ball environmental law firm based in Mumbai, looking to pull in a cool billion bucks from the deep pockets of Vancouver city council? One per cent seems fair.

Because that same B.C. outfit just voted to go after various oil companies — mostly based in Alberta, of course — for a hefty share of expected costs due to predicted climate change. They reckon a billion dollars would be reasonable compensation for future damages.

So they can’t complain when cities across India return that favour and request similar big payouts, considering Vancouver is North America’s largest coal exporting port and the latest lucrative market for that environmentally nasty black stuff is — yep, you guessed it — India.

Is it any wonder the saintly David Suzuki feels so at home in B.C., with his handful of fancy homes? That province ranks first, second and third in the hypocrisy Olympics, combining an endless bleating about the dangers of oil pipelines with a grubby cash grab from exporting coal.

Because Vancouver didn’t get atop the exporting coal heap simply by flogging the megatonnes mined in B.C. and Alberta. Oh no, that wasn’t enough for them. Instead, they’re merrily, if somewhat sheepishly, importing massive amounts of this major carbon-emitting fuel from the United States.

It seems mines in landlocked Montana and Wyoming have similar issues to Alberta in getting their product to overseas markets: they need co-operation from the two neighbouring states that have coastlines.

But the environmental lobby in Oregon and Washington has blocked that route to potential Asian riches, thereby providing a golden opportunity for the Port of Vancouver to step in and offer a suitable export solution, one to be rewarded with sizable moolah.

What a crazy world we live in when protesters and 3 levels of government fight tooth and nail to prevent Alberta from getting its oil to tide-water, but quietly goes around Washington and Oregon environmental laws to get Montana and Wyoming coal to port. This is utterly astonishing in its hypocrisy.

The nerve of these folk is absolutely stunning. It would make Justin Trudeau’s eyes water if they weren’t already in a state of perpetual liquidity.

Vancouver was already exporting 36 million tonnes of coal a year — both the metallurgic and thermal kind — with China the major market. But they’ve landed India as well because the Aussies, once a major supplier, have reliability supply issues.

So while we are intent on destroying our own energy industry in a move that won’t matter a jot to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, we’ll simultaneously provide the coking coal allowing India to double its current steel production to 300 million tonnes by 2030. Imagine the extra global emissions arising from that.

Oh, and how does this coal get to India? Is some Lotusland version of Star Trek’s Scotty beaming it there? Nope, it will go by big tanker ship — strange, as an increase in that type of vessel when carrying oil is deemed a destructive noise threat to the region’s orcas.

Heck, I knew orcas were smart critters but never imagined they could see through tanker hulls so to reassure their collective pods there’s no need to worry about any racket from that one over there. No, kiddy killer whales, that ship’s only carrying coal.

Anyhow the good people of India have every right to clean air and a stable climate as us lot so it seems only fair Vancouver shell out big time for sending dirty coal — both the Yanks’ and ours — enabling the subcontinent’s future CO2 emissions to explode.

And India’s a big country with many cities. Maybe I’ll retire in style on all those future legal finders’ fees. Heck, with the proceeds, I could buy four luxury homes next door to David Suzuki’s various abodes.

Nah, I prefer the clean smell of an 1,100-square-foot Calgary bungalow and the knowledge our household’s carbon footprint is tiny. Actions rather than words — wasn’t there once a popular saying along those lines? Maybe it never made it across the Rockies.

Chris Nelson is a regular columnist for the Calgary Herald.

Why the Global Fossil-Fuel Phase-Out is a Fantasy Akin to Time Travel

A reality check on ending fossil fuels by 2050

To produce the power needed to offset fossil fuels, Canada would have to

build two and a half $13-billion hydro dams every year

Canada’s Green Party, said to be gaining ground, has a new platform plan,

headlined “Mission: Possible," to eliminate fossil fuels by 2050. Getty Images

Terence Corcoran

Financial Post

Judging from the headlines, Canada and the world are on track to ratchet up renewable energy and begin the rapid scale-down and ultimate phase-out of fossil fuels. Most energy analysts consider the fossil-fuel phase-out to be a scientific, economic and political fantasy, akin to levitation and time travel, but the movement keeps making news.

Governments everywhere — from Canada to the United Kingdom to states in Australia — are declaring climate emergencies and committing to variations on zero emissions. The international organization promoting emergency declarations claims “a fast transition to zero emissions is possible.”

Canada’s Green Party, said to be gaining ground, has a new platform plan, headlined “Mission: Possible,” to eliminate fossil fuels by 2050. A proposed Green New Deal in America aims to eliminate fossil fuels from the U.S. power grid by 2030 and phase gasoline out of the transportation sector.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says Canada’s oil industry is on its way out: “It’s the direction the world is headed.” The newly announced Liberal and Conservative programs are leaning in the zero-carbon direction, although less explicitly.

The magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort takes us beyond the possible

and into the world of junk science fiction

   

So what are the carbon zeroists talking about? Aside from massive amounts of government intervention — almost a total takeover of the economy — the practicality of it all looks a bit impossible, to put it mildly. As the graph below suggests, the required technological and economic change could be a little overwhelming.

The general scale of the operation is hinted at by Climate Mobilization, an organization promoting climate emergency declarations: “Only WWII-scale Climate Mobilization can protect humanity and the natural world.”

In keeping with the analogy, here are some indicators of the magnitude of the coming Green World War III.

In Canada, for example, Vancouver energy consultant Aldyen Donnelly calculated that to achieve the “deep decarbonization” Canada is aiming for will require massive expansions of non-fossil fuel sources of energy.

To produce the electric power needed to offset the lost fossil fuel energy, Canada would have to build 2.5 hydro power dams the size of British Columbia’s $13-billion Site C project somewhere in the country “every year for the foreseeable future” leading up to the proposed 2050 carbon reduction targets. The geographic and cost obstacles send that prospect into the realm of the impossible.

On a global basis, the magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort illustrated in the graph takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction. In 2018, world consumption of fossil fuels rose to 11,865 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). To get that down to near zero by 2050 as proposed by the zeroists would require a lot of alternative energy sources.

University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. “There are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.” On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.

If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 (should be 11,161) solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.

So far, other tested technologies do not exist to offset the fossil fuel energy that would be lost under the green zero targets. Maybe this is a world war that should be stopped before it gets out of control.

Of course, no one approach would be used but a multiplicity of approaches, which, so far are limited to 4 - hydro power, nuclear, wind, and solar. To calculate a very rough estimate we will assume that all four power sources will grow equally. Therefore, we can divide Dr Pielke's estimates by 4. That leaves:

- Building 0.625 site C scale dams each year; that's 18.75 new dams. That should go down well with indigenous peoples, if there are 19 possible sites in Canada. Getting approval for the first one would take until 2050.

- Building a 1.5 gw nuclear plant every 4 days for 30 years; or 2790 nuclear plants; ie one for every city with 1 million people or more.

- Building 750,000 Solar panels per day for a total of 8 trillion, 370 billion, 750 million solar panels. Of course, that would mean that we would all be living underneath a solar panel.

- Building 107.5 wind turbines every day, or 1 million, 200 thousand turbines total. There wouldn't be a bird left alive on the planet.

Of course, the carbon foot-print required to build these structures would mean they would be woefully inadequate by the time they are all built. So we would have to do it again in the next 50 years. That's presuming there are no big volcanoes to make a mockery of all our doings.

But perhaps technology will provide many new ways to reduce the necessity of all this building. Let's pretend it will cut the total need in half. Try cutting my numbers in half and see if they are any less absurd. 

It looks like insanity to me. 

Talk About ‘Collusion’: How Foreign-Backed Anti-Oil Activists Infiltrated Canada’s Government

Or, how wealthy American environmentalists bought the Canadian government and destroyed Alberta's Oil Sands industry

If this kind of political interference had happened in the USA, there would have been war. But in Canada, it won't even make a wave in the political ocean. Our politicians and media are so entrenched in the system, they don't even care that they have been had. 

I'm sure, if Ms Krause continues her research she will find connections between Tides and the global climate hysteria. This is not Deep State at work, but perhaps I can call it, Shallow State.

Piece by meticulously researched piece, Vivian Krause has spent almost 10 years exposing this story

A protest in Washington against Canada's oilsands.Bloomberg

Special to Financial Post
Gwyn Morgan

Canadians watching Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election might be tempted to find comfort in their certainty that such foreign interference could never happen here.

Except it already has. And while the Russian government at least denies interfering in American political affairs, the perpetrators who meddled in Canadian elections have publicly trumpeted their success in devising and executing their plan aimed at helping elect who they wanted.

This story has all the elements of a fiction novel.

Unfortunately it’s real.

This story has all the elements of a fiction novel. Unfortunately it’s real. Piece by meticulously researched piece, B.C.-based independent researcher Vivian Krause spent almost 10 years exposing the story. Every detail has been corroborated, including with American and Canadian tax records, together with documents and statements from the perpetrators themselves.

The story begins in 2008, when a group of radical American anti-fossil-fuel NGOs created their “Tar Sands Campaign Strategy 2.1” designed explicitly “to landlock the Canadian oil sands by delaying or blocking the expansion or development of key pipelines.” A list of key strategic targets included: “educating and organizing First Nations to challenge construction of pipelines across their traditional territories” and bringing “multiple actions in Canadian federal and provincial courts.” A “raising the negatives” section includes recruiting celebrity spokes-persons such as Leonardo Di Caprio to “lend their brand to opponents of tar sands and generating a high negative media profile for tar sands oil.”

What would become a massively disruptive intrusion into Canadian affairs would take years and a large amount of money. Enter the Rockefeller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. They, along with environmentalist charities, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the U.S.-based Tides Foundation, a murky organization that provides cover as a legal laundering service that can funnel donations into activist groups, without revealing the source.

Independent researcher Vivian Krause uncovered evidence of a U.S. led green campaign to landlock Alberta oil. Shaughn Butts / Postmedia

Since both American and Canadian tax laws require charities to document receipt and disbursement of funds, Krause was able to gather irrefutable evidence that tens of millions of dollars were transferred from Tides U.S. to its Tides Canada affiliate. Moreover, Krause was able to obtain 70 covering letters showing the recipients and how they used the funds.

They went towards mobilizing First Nations against the fear of oil spills, including payments to help build “indigenous solidarity resistance to pipeline routes,” to maintain “opposition to oil tankers” and to “provide legal support for actions constraining tar sands development.” Funding also went to the Great Bear Initiative Society to build support for designating the so-called “Spirit Bear” habitat as a nature reserve.

Payments went to the Pembina Institute to “advance…the narrative that oil sands expansion is problematic”; to Greenpeace Canada “for events to show opposition to pipelines and tar sands expansion”; to the Living Oceans Society “to build opposition to the Kinder Morgan Pipeline”; and to Forest Ethics “to conduct education and outreach opposing the Kinder Morgan and Northern Gateway pipelines.”

But the American anti-oilsands funding effort didn’t stop at encouraging opposition to oil pipelines. The Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative received millions of dollars from Tides Canada to run get-out-the-vote campaigns in the 2017 B.C. provincial election, including deploying a throng of campaign workers in the riding of Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver. After his election, the B.C. government would be in the hands of an NDP/Green alliance bent on fighting the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Money was also funnelled to campaign activists working to help the Liberals win the 2015 election. Vancouver-based Leadnow received directly and through the B.C.-based Sisu Institute more than $1 million from Tides Canada towards the objective of defeating then prime minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, which supported expanding the oil and gas industry. Leadnow claims its campaigners helped defeat Conservative candidates in 25 ridings.

If it weren’t for all that American funding directed at a campaign mobilizing First Nations and other anti-pipeline activists, the Liberals might not have been so successful in running against the Harper Conservatives; but then, without the election of an ideologically anti-oilsands Liberal government, the funding for the anti-oilsands campaign might not have been enough, either. The website of the Tar Sands Campaign boasted until recently a quote from team leader Michael Marx: “The controversy from the campaign contributed to political victories at the provincial and national level in 2015 and led to bold climate commitments by Canadian leaders.” After the CBC reported this past January on the campaign (which the National Post and Financial Post, with Krause’s help, had been reporting on for years) on The Weekly hosted by Wendy Mesley, Marx’s quote was taken off the campaign’s site. (The episode is very much worth watching.)

But the campaigners received a bonus beyond their wildest dreams when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed one of their most dedicated eco-warriors as his principal secretary. Prior to ascending to the most powerful post in the Prime Minister’s Office, from 2008 to 2012 Gerald Butts was president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada (WWF Canada), an important Tides campaign partner. Butts would use his new powerful position to bring other former campaigners with him: Marlo Raynolds‏, chief of staff to Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, is past executive director of the Tides-backed Pembina Institute. Zoë Caron, chief of staff to Natural Resource Minister Amarjeet Sohi, is also a former WWF Canada official. Sarah Goodman, on the prime minister’s staff, is a former vice-president of Tides Canada. With these anti-oil activists at the epicentre of federal power, it’s no wonder the oil industry, and hundreds of thousands of workers, have plummeted into political and policy purgatory.

Now, Butts, the architect of this economic and social disaster and national-unity crisis has resigned amid a scandal alleging inappropriate favours for SNC-Lavalin. I wonder if this resignation will pay as well as the last one: When Butts resigned from WWF Canada to join the PMO, Krause discovered that he subsequently received two separate payments from WWF Canada totalling $361,642. When Krause asked him about it, he explained in a May 26, 2016 tweet that: “It was my contract severance.” That’s startling. Over my entire career leading one of Canada’s largest companies and serving as a director of four others, I have never heard of “severance” paid when someone decided to quit.

But then, in a way, Butts never did. He would prove to be as or more useful to the anti-oilsands activists at WWF Canada and other hard-core environmental groups being inside the government, rather than outside it. From one job to the next, he never stopped fighting Alberta’s oilpatch.

That is the latest sorrowful chapter in this scandalous story — a story that never could have been told without the determination of Vivian Krause, a real Canadian patriot who dedicated 10 years uncovering the truth.

Gwyn Morgan is the retired founding CEO of Encana Corp. 

Greenpeace Gets it Wrong, Again; Increased Prosperity Improves Ecosystems

Mark Milke
The Province Opinion Op-Ed

Tourists and Londoners along the Thames River. DHF/ZDS / Dinendra Haria/WENN

Economic growth — implicitly criticized — can and has damaged the environment. However, increasing prosperity, once a minimum threshold of subsistence income is reached, inevitably allows for improved ecosystems.

You may know this frightening if self-evident bit of advice: “Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money.” The quote is ostensibly from Canada’s First Nations peoples (the Cree are often cited) but popularized by Greenpeace.

The point is clear enough: Anyone with sense should avoid killing the earth and/or their own future just to make a few bucks.

But most of life is not composed of such binary, either-or dramatic choices. You can fish, for example, just as some First Nations did 15,000 years ago or 15 minutes ago, without necessarily depleting fish stocks.

As with all of life, it is a question of balance. That also includes managing government lands (always more difficult than managing private property) so resources are not overused and depleted.

That noted, here is the other reality check on the romanticized quotation: Economic growth — implicitly criticized — can and has damaged the environment. However, increasing prosperity, once a minimum threshold of subsistence income is reached, inevitably allows for improved ecosystems.

For example, 140 years ago, London’s Thames River was a polluted, poisonous, dead body of water. When a passenger ship sunk in 1878 after a collision, at least some of the 600 passengers who died might have survived. The problem was that as some swam to shore they were overcome “by the noxious cocktail of pollution in the water,” was how the Daily Telegraph described it.

By 1957, the Thames was pronounced biologically dead. But after an intensive environmental program, as well as improved technology, it was revived, and as of 2010, when the Telegraph wrote its story, the river was home to 125 types of fish and more than 400 species of invertebrates. Herons and seals now frolic near Canary Wharf.

Ponder another example: In the 1950s and in subsequent decades, Los Angeles was choked by smog. Public demands coupled with technological advances (you need the second to realistically satisfy the first) meant air quality improved by the time I lived there briefly in the 1980s. The smog was still there, but Los Angeles air was far better than in previous decades. L.A. air quality has also steadily improved in the last three decades despite many more people who live and drive in the city and state.

Air quality in the Fraser Valley and Vancouver, British Columbia has improved remarkably in the past two decades as the Port of Vancouver installed huge electric outlets for ships to plug into when in port, rather than running their diesels continuously. 

Then there are trees. Forest cover around the world has been recovering for decades in every place where people have prospered under increasingly market-friendly economies. According to Human Progress, China, Europe and North America have all gained forest cover in the last three decades: 511,800 more square kilometres in China; 212,122 more in Europe; and 64,410 square kilometres gained in North America.

The exception to this positive trend has been in countries that are poor, thus Africa is still losing forest cover. No surprise there. Mothers and fathers need fuel to cook food for their families, and if trees are the only option, expect them to disappear. The remedy, which should be obvious, is to use natural gas or electricity from hydro, where available. That will prevent “cutting down the last tree.”

The other remedy is more and not less economic growth to advance human prosperity. Those in poverty, either as families or entire countries, have nothing left with which to buy less-polluting energy. In the case of governments, it is difficult to require and enforce more stringent pollution controls when consumers live hand-to-mouth and companies are barely profitable.

Widespread prosperity allows families to purchase other forms of energy rather than burning what is nearest to them. Rising living standards also allows for clean-ups of rivers and significantly better automobiles, the Thames and Los Angeles lessons respectively.

None of this means nirvana exists. In China, for example, while forest cover has increased, smog is thick for much of the year. That nation’s consumers, businesses and often corrupt governments in particular could usefully spend more money on effective environmental improvements. Also, overfishing in the oceans is still a problem. That speaks to the need for (some) environmental organizations to stop opposing fish farming, which can ease pressure on fish stocks in the commons.

But the general rule holds: It is increasing prosperity which allows for people once too poor to avoid environmental dead ends, to instead have the money and time to care for the environment. Or put another way, only when the last bit of propaganda from Greenpeace ends, might more people realize that from increasing forest cover to cleaner rivers, many environmental indicators have been trending positive for decades.

Mark Milke is an author, policy analyst and contributor to Canadians for Affordable Energy. 

What the Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Aren’t Telling You

This article is decidedly one-sided but don't let that put you off.

The other side has been told every day by a plethora of media outlets;

this side has not been told by any, and consequently,

the truth has been masked by the liberal media, as usual.

by Shawn McCoy, Inside Sources

With the help of celebrities and professional activists, protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota have attracted international attention. The shouting and violence have drawn sympathy from people who are hearing only one side of the story — the one told by activists. Were the full story to be heard, much, if not all, of that sympathy would vanish.

Actress Shailene Woodley speaks during a rally outside U.S. District Court in Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2016, in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in their lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

The activists tell an emotionally-charged tale of greed, racism, and misbehavior by corporate and government officials. But the real story of the Dakota Access Pipeline was revealed in court documents in September, and it is nothing like the activists’ tale. In fact, it is the complete opposite.

The record shows that Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, spent years working diligently with federal, state, and local officials to route the pipeline safely and with the fewest possible disruptions. The contrast between the protesters’ claims and the facts on record is stunning.

Protesters claim that the pipeline was “fast-tracked,” denying tribal leaders the opportunity to participate in the process. In fact, project leaders participated in 559 meetings with community leaders, local officials, and organizations to listen to concerns and fine-tune the route. The company asked for, and received, a tougher federal permitting process at sites along the Missouri River. This more difficult procedure included a mandated review of each water crossing’s potential impact on historical artifacts and locations.

Protesters claim that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to consult tribal leaders as required by federal law. The record shows that the corps held 389 meetings with 55 tribes. Corps officials met numerous times with leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which initiated the lawsuit and the protests.

Protesters claim that the Standing Rock Sioux pursued meetings with an unresponsive Army Corps of Engineers. Court records show that the roles in that story were in fact reversed. The corps alerted the tribe to the pipeline permit application in the fall of 2014 and repeatedly requested comments from and meetings with tribal leaders only to be rebuffed over and over again. Tribal leaders ignored requests for comment and canceled meetings multiple times.

In September of 2014 alone, the corps made five unsuccessful attempts to meet with Standing Rock Sioux leaders. The next month, a meeting was arranged, but “when the Corps timely arrived for the meeting, Tribal Chairman David Archambault told them that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended,” according to a federal judge. At a planned meeting the next month, the tribe took the pipeline off the agenda and refused to discuss it. This stonewalling by tribal leaders continued for a year and a half.

Typical of the misinformation spread during the protests is a comment made by Jesse Jackson, who recently joined the activists in North Dakota. He said the decision to reroute the pipeline so that it crossed close to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s water intake was “racism.”

The pipeline route was adjusted based on concerns expressed by locals — including other tribal leaders — who met with company and Army Corps of Engineers officials. The court record reveals that the Standing Rock Sioux refused to meet with corps officials to discuss the route until after site work had begun. That work is now 77 percent completed at a cost of $3 billion.

In response to a lawsuit filed by the Standing Rock Sioux, the court documented “dozens of attempts” by the corps to consult with the tribe. It documented the legal and proper approval process the corps used to permit all of the contested construction sites the tribe claimed were improperly permitted. It even documented evidence that the corps had exceeded the minimum legal requirements during its earnest and lengthy efforts to receive the input of tribal leaders on the pipeline.

Pipeline protesters may have a tight grip on media coverage of the pipeline, but they have a demonstrably loose grip on the facts. The truth — as documented not by the company but by the federal court system is that pipeline approvals were not rushed, permits were not granted illegally, and tribal leaders were not excluded. These are proven facts upheld by two federal courts.

If only this side of the story were getting the same attention as the other side. Perhaps judges should start announcing their rulings by megaphone while standing beside a few media-attracting celebrities.

About the Author
Shawn McCoy
Shawn is the Publisher of InsideSources. Previously, he served as Iowa Communications Director for the Romney Campaign and has advised other campaigns nationwide. Shawn has an MBA, concentrated in econometrics and statistics, from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and he completed his undergraduate work at the University of Notre Dame. He has a dog named Milton, after his favorite economist.

Liberals Hysterical Opposition to Oil Pipelines Makes No Sense

The Globe and Mail is Canada's national liberal-leaning newspaper as is obvious from this piece. The article puts forward some good questions but leaves out the most important ones.

Some huge decisions will be made in the coming weeks with regard to the environment and the economy; the Globe and Mail seems totally concerned with one and totally unconcerned with the other.

MARK HUME, VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail

Panel reviewing Trans Mountain pipeline poses troubling questions for cabinet

    Kinder-Morgan loading dock, Burnaby, British Columbia

The ministerial panel appointed by the federal government to review the National Energy Board’s appraisal of the Trans Mountain pipeline proposal concluded its report last week without any recommendations.

Instead, the panel posed six troubling questions for the cabinet to consider before it rules on the controversial pipeline next month.

Ottawa had not wanted any recommendations from the panel, but rather sought a broad report that would allow the government to make its own unencumbered decision.

That might seem like a smart, keep-the-options-open approach by Ottawa, but to many on the West Coast, it looks like political manoeuvring by a government bent on approval.

However, the panel report did not let the government completely off the hook, because it made clear just how profoundly important the questions being posed are to British Columbians.

If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approves the pipeline without providing adequate answers, he will only inflame opponents who are already anticipating bad news from Ottawa.

Greenpeace is organizing a civil disobedience workshop in Vancouver on Nov. 12, and the weekend after that, a protest march is planned.

“Twenty-one municipalities, 61 First Nations, 210,000 petition signers (so far) and 91% presenters at this summer’s public meetings [by the ministerial panel] on Kinder Morgan oppose this reckless pipeline and tanker project,” an organizing protest group, FortheCoast, said in a recent press release. “On November 19th, a rally and march is expected to draw thousands, marching from City Hall across the Cambie Bridge and culminating in a pledge to resist the pipeline with civil disobedience if necessary.”

The pipeline is being opposed for a number of reasons, but foremost is the concern that if it goes ahead, it will promote oil sands development for 50 more years, dooming any attempts in Canada to meaningfully tackle climate change.

It's remarkable how easily Mark Hume dismisses 50 years of operation of the single most important economic engine in Canada. How many trillions of dollars would that mean to Canada's already suffering economy? Apparently, it doesn't matter.

The first question posed by the panel is this: “Can construction of a new Trans Mountain pipeline be reconciled with Canada’s climate change commitments?”

The federal government clearly thinks it can. The panel report notes that Mr. Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley both say Canada has to transition slowly away from fossil fuels.

“We need to make smart strategic investments in clean growth and new infrastructure, but we must also continue to generate wealth from our abundant natural resources to fund this transition,” the report quotes the Prime Minister as saying.

But if Mr. Trudeau thinks that answer will wash with critics of the pipeline, he is wrong. The panel’s report makes the depth of public concerns clear, quoting an unnamed woman as testifying at the hearings on how “deeply hopeless about the future” her daughters feel because of climate change.

“She said: ‘It’s hard to hear that I will never have grandchildren.’ She then went on to condemn the Trans Mountain proposal as the kind of ‘tipping-point project’ that cannot be allowed if Canadians hope to slow the advance of climate change. And the crowd cheered,” the report says.

Mark Hume - What? What is the connection between a woman who will never have grandchildren, and anything? Are her children sterile because of climate change? Did you just throw that in there to provoke some emotion?

You think it is right and proper to base a decision worth billions of dollars, if not trillions, on how someone's daughters feel? Wouldn't it be better to tell them the truth - that Canada is responsible for less than 2% of anthropogenic CO2, and anthropogenic CO2 makes up less than 4% of total CO2 production. Consequently, Canada's contribution to total CO2 production is less than 0.08%. 

Do you think reducing that to 0.07%, or 0.05% will make any difference in the global temperature? Don't be absurd! Yet you seem willing to throw away kazillions of dollars for what will amount to a global temperature reduction that is far too infinitesimal to measure.

In fact, if we shut down the oil sands; all other industry that produces smoke; if we closed all highways and made cars and trucks illegal, only horses allowed on the roads, it would still make no measurable difference in global warming. 

It's way too premature to shut down the fossil fuel industry; we don't have the means to replace it yet. We should be investing in those means, but right now, if we stopped all fossil fuels there are thousands, if not millions of homes in Canada that would have to resort to burning wood or coal for heat - just as an example.

Meanwhile, where does the money come from to invest in green energy if we cut-off the main economic engine in the country? 

The panel also notes that Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and current Governor of the Bank of England, “said the world cannot safely – or profitably – continue to exploit fossil fuels.”

From the angry mother to the head of the Bank of England – that’s quite a gamut of opposition to try to counter with sunny ways.

Among other things, the panel also asked how the government can effectively assess projects such as the pipeline in the absence of a comprehensive national energy strategy, how it can grant approval while meeting its commitment to reconciliation with First Nations, and how it can be confident of its assessment, given the many perceived flaws of the NEB process.

Mr. Trudeau hasn’t answered those difficult questions yet. And critics of the pipeline apparently don’t expect him to, at least not convincingly. They know that the government cannot justify to them a decision based on a process they don’t trust, to override the rights of First Nations and to proceed with a project that can only exacerbate climate change.

So they are preparing for battle now. The only question they think needs answering is: How can we save the planet?

How utterly ridiculous! Reducing CO2 production in Canada cannot save the planet. Completely eliminating CO2 production in Canada, an impossibility, not only cannot save the planet, it will not make any difference whatsoever! 

It's time liberal-minded people stopped the hysterical panic and turned their attention to things they can actually do something about like poverty and child sex abuse.