Skip navigation

Cash and tax breaks for the carbon agenda

Globe and Mail Update

Five-year plan offers $2.4-billion for clean energy projects ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Just In from Canada writes: In his budget Tuesday, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty unveiled a $1-billion "green energy fund" that will support research and commercialization of clean-energy projects, including carbon capture and storage (CCS).

    The finance minister also moved to extend accelerated tax writeoffs to companies that invest in CCS, which diverts carbon dioxide from smokestacks and then pipes it underground for permanent storage.

    --------

    This is nothing but a Carbon Handbout to Alberta tar sands interests. It is truly laughable to call this tar sands oil "green energy". The rest of the world would call wind power, solar, tidal, geo-thermal "green energy". Only the Harper Prentice oil shills call tar sands green energy. I am not an environmentalist. Even then I can see this being insulting to both environmentalists and fiscal conservatives. It is nothing more than a Carbon Handout.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Energy%20giants%20should%20bill/979268/story.html

    QUOTE

    Do Albertans really need to subsidize the energy industry by $2 billion? Can't these companies absorb the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by using a portion of the huge profits they are making?

    Canadian Natural Resources and Petro-Canada are two oilsands players in line for a portion of this hand-out.

    END QUOTE

    http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=edd70aca-4a0b-429f-9d57-67d483dfcf42

    QUOTE

    P remier Ed Stelmach called on the federal government Thursday to cough up a matching $2 billion for carbon capture and storage technology, the same day Ottawa rolled out a series of austerity measures during tough economic times.

    END QUOTE
  2. Sue W from Canada writes: .....Finance Canada said Tuesday that the review continues, but signaled Ottawa is now considering selling off a portion of AECL's commercial operations to a private sector partner, an option that falls well short of full privatization.....

    This was the plan from Day 1. Commercial operations....the only operation that has the potential to make money will be sold to the usual partner partner the handful of reactors built. Taxpayers will be left with the the non-profit, money-losing divisions...like R&D. After all which company in their right mind buys a business that doesn't make any money?
  3. Peace Mann from The North, Canada writes: That is right Sue. But the Government should also get rid of ALL money losing operations, the CBC for one.
  4. J D from Canada writes: The journalist offers the opinion that the budget falls short of Obama's "ambitious conservation and renewable energy goals" yet provides no information or analysis to support the claim.

    Anybody know what he's talking about?
  5. Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    This is an outrage. The Federal Government should have at least matched Alberta’s 2 billion.

    Or given the same amount as the auto industry received.

    .
  6. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: The journalist offers the opinion that the budget falls short of Obama's "ambitious conservation and renewable energy goals" yet provides no information or analysis to support the claim.

    Anybody know what he's talking about?

    ---------

    From this article:

    Mr. Flaherty did not extend financing under the ecoEnergy renewable energy program that provides grants for wind, small hydro and other clean energy projects. That program is due to expire in the coming year, and the wind industry, in particular, was keen to see it replenished.

    ==========

    and together with the Carbon Handout I posted earlier, it is quite clear the Harper government wants to encourage continued use of oil, and is not interested in developing new sources of non-fossil clean energy. Instead, Harper's idea of "clean energy" is to sanitize tar sands dirty oil at the expense of tax payers. This is in contrast with Obama's well known support of reducing dependence on oil imports by both developing new sources such as solar, wind power, and by reducing consumption with the states setting their own fuel efficiency standards for cars starting 2011.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22022/

    With Obama and Hilary Clinton clearly changing policy at the next international climate change conference, Canada will be the lone player trying to defend herself. It will not be a pretty scene. In comparison, defending the Seal Hunt would be a cake walk.
  7. Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Just in,

    We talked about this last night, When CCS is incorporated the oil sands will be able to reduce 98% of its carbon output during production.

    If anyone has a problem with reducing carbon output from the oil sands is beyond hope.

    .
  8. Just In from Canada writes: Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Just in,

    We talked about this last night, When CCS is incorporated the oil sands will be able to reduce 98% of its carbon output during production.

    If anyone has a problem with reducing carbon output from the oil sands is beyond hope.

    -------

    Carbon Capture should be paid by the industry, not the government. No sympathy from me.
  9. Joan Forsey from Toronto, Canada writes: Earlier today a Globe list of budget spending included a "new Clean Energy Fund, to generate more than $2.5 billion in investments" and a "new $1-billion green infrastructure fund, including transmission lines to connect renewable energy projects."

    Now this article reports a "green energy fund" of $1 billion.

    Is this the Green Infrastructure Fund that the government describes on its website ("$1 billion over five years to support clean energy technologies")?

    Or is it the "new Clean Energy Fund" that the government website describes ("...that supports clean energy research development and demonstration projects, including carbon capture and storage.")? The government website gives no dollar value for this -- but the Globe's earlier spending list said "$2.5 billion in investments."

    Very confusing. Any hope of a clarification?
  10. J D from Canada writes: So Just In, you're aware of Obama's support for "clean coal"? Electricity from oil is cleaner than electricity from coal, as I'm sure you're aware.

    I see Canada proposing an environmental accord, and putting real dollars into some environmental initiatives. Good news, and concrete initiatives. It's certainly not at all clear that Canada somehow trails the new US administration.

    On climate change, read the details. The US is coming around to Canada's position. A climate change deal is good; China and India must be on board. Not really groundbreaking.

    Everyone needs to make an effort on the environment. Making false comparison's is to nobody's advantage.
  11. Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Just in,

    Industry is going to pay; the whole capture and sequestration project is going to cost hundreds of billions. Yes that’s not a typo, hundreds. The Provincial and Federal government needs to put up at least 4% of the project costs before industry is going to risk the rest.

    .
  12. Just In from Canada writes: Joan Forsey from Toronto, Canada writes: Earlier today a Globe list of budget spending included a "new Clean Energy Fund, to generate more than $2.5 billion in investments" and a "new $1-billion green infrastructure fund, including transmission lines to connect renewable energy projects."

    Now this article reports a "green energy fund" of $1 billion.

    Is this the Green Infrastructure Fund that the government describes on its website ("$1 billion over five years to support clean energy technologies")?

    Or is it the "new Clean Energy Fund" that the government website describes ("...that supports clean energy research development and demonstration projects, including carbon capture and storage.")? The government website gives no dollar value for this -- but the Globe's earlier spending list said "$2.5 billion in investments."

    Very confusing. Any hope of a clarification?

    ------

    From this article:

    QUOTE
    Mr. Flaherty did not extend financing under the ecoEnergy renewable energy program that provides grants for wind, small hydro and other clean energy projects. That program is due to expire in the coming year, and the wind industry, in particular, was keen to see it replenished.

    END QUOTE

    the only so called "clean energy research" is to sanitize dirty Alberta tar sands oil. This is the most ridiculous "green energy" program in the WORLD. Canada will be the laughing stock of the world.
  13. Just In from Canada writes: Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    This is an outrage. The Federal Government should have at least matched Alberta's 2 billion.

    Or given the same amount as the auto industry received.

    --------

    The tar sands oil interests have a ridiculous SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT that they own Harper Prentice and therefore a Carbon Handout of $1 billion is not enough, and with no strings attached.

    The auto industry if they agree to restructuring terms including cuts in labour costs and market viability will only get a repayable loan. With that comparison, the tar sands industry should also be getting no better than a CARBON BAILOUT LOAN upon furnishing proof of distress and willingness to cut labour costs. Last I heard, a tar sands dump truck driver makes a $100,000 a year - and the tar sands industry deserve a HANDOUT to continue the largesse?
  14. Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Joan,

    It really doesn’t matter what the numbers are, because they are to small. The Federal Government needs to pony up at least 10 billion in the first year to make a difference.

    Albertans send 16 billion more to the feds per year than it receives back in transfer payments. At least a one year opt-out would be reasonable.

    .
  15. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: So Just In, you're aware of Obama's support for "clean coal"? Electricity from oil is cleaner than electricity from coal, as I'm sure you're aware.

    I see Canada proposing an environmental accord, and putting real dollars into some environmental initiatives. Good news, and concrete initiatives. It's certainly not at all clear that Canada somehow trails the new US administration.

    --------

    The only concrete initiative is to rob tax payer dollars to pay tar sands oil interest while canceling support for developing alternate sources of energy such as solar or wind.

    Harper Prentice are tar sands industry shills.

    As for Obama "clean coal", I don't care. I don't have to pay for it. Why should I pay for sanitizing tar sands oil?

    Alberta tar sands oil interests are welfare bums.
  16. Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Just in wrote: the tar sands industry deserve a HANDOUT to continue the largesse?

    Yes – exactly if you want Canada to pull out of this recession, Alberta B.C and Sask are the only job creating provinces in the country. Job creation is necessary to create extra or additional income taxes to pay the countries bills.

    .
  17. J D from Canada writes: Best way to deal with the tar sands is the NA climate accord. It's a great idea. And everybody who burns oil, or coal, will pay for it. Also a good idea and the only solution for climate change.

    I'm just drawing attention to the editorialization in the article. The more that's actually done for the environment on both sides of the border the better. I'd say the US is starting to follow Canada's lead. That's progress.

    Solar? Not viable. Wind? Ok, but it's a small niche. The real climate battle is fossil fuels, which will remain the predominant source of energy for decades to come.
  18. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Best way to deal with the tar sands is the NA climate accord. It's a great idea. And everybody who burns oil, or coal, will pay for it. Also a good idea and the only solution for climate change.

    I'm just drawing attention to the editorialization in the article. The more that's actually done for the environment on both sides of the border the better. I'd say the US is starting to follow Canada's lead. That's progress.

    Solar? Not viable. Wind? Ok, but it's a small niche. The real climate battle is fossil fuels, which will remain the predominant source of energy for decades to come.

    ---------

    I don't care what is the source of energy. I don't care what argument is put forward to get a HANDOUT.
  19. J D from Canada writes: Yet you like handouts for solar and wind. Pretty confused argument. I take it you've got your hands in that pork barrel.

    Whether its subsidies or taxes, something has to do to price energy correctly. I'm not going to criticize progress on the climate change front. It's good news.
  20. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Yet you like handouts for solar and wind. Pretty confused argument. I take it you've got your hands in that pork barrel.

    ---------

    No. You are projecting. I don't support hand out to any specific industry. I have no problem with CCA rules that apply equally to ALL INDUSTRIES. I certainly have no interest in neither energy nor auto sector.
  21. Just In from Canada writes: Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Just in wrote: the tar sands industry deserve a HANDOUT to continue the largesse?

    Yes exactly if you want Canada to pull out of this recession, Alberta BC and Sask are the only job creating provinces in the country. Job creation is necessary to create extra or additional income taxes to pay the countries bills.

    --------

    My comment was clearly sarcastic and my position was tar sands industry does NOT deserve a hand out. No one deserves a hand out.

    As for pulling out of a recession, the tar sands industry has no control over its destiny. As oil price drops, every barrel of tar sands oil is a losing proposition. The more you produce, the more you lose. Other industries can invent new products that sell. Oil industry cannot create new demand. Tar sands oil industry is the highest cost producer of oil in the world and therefore the first one to die like a dinosaur. Why throw good money after bad.

    Obama will keep oil price low by arranging for higher fuel efficiency standards for new 2011 model cars. China is on a fuel efficiency drive with their gasification of coal to reduce oil imports, and they are going electric with cars which are more fuel efficient. There is no new demand for oil from any major oil importing country. The trend for oil demand is downwards. There is no hope. Give it up.

    Alberta needs to diversify into non-oil-based economy. Delaying action only worsens the cancer.

    Ontario pays $23 billion to the feds more than she takes every year, and Ontario never brag about it. Ontario will invent new products and industries to take Canada out of the recession into the next business cycle. That is the only way to move Canada forward into the 21st century, not Alberta's way of becoming a pseudo African Middle East third-world hole in the ground economy.
  22. J D from Canada writes: hahahaah!! The trend for oil demand is downwards? China is on fuel efficiency drive?

    Just In, put away the bottle and inform yourself.
  23. Just In from Canada writes: Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada,

    If tar sands oil industry is really investing $100 billion (I don't believe it - show me the money) then invest the money, show that you can generate tax revenues and the feds can give back a tax rebate. So far the only one investing in this is Harper stealing my tax dollars to fund a pilot project:

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/03/08/alberta-harper.html

    followed by Stelmach promising $2 billion of Alberta tax payers money, and asking for Harper to match, in response to which he HANDED OUT $1 billion in this budget alone. This public tax payer money is called First In Never Out. Public bail out money to auto may be (not sure, but should be) Last In First Out Repayable - and the auto is in clear distress.

    Alberta tar sands oil interests are welfare bums.
  24. J D from Canada writes: Actually, Just In, the ones who are getting the subsidies from the oil sands are the consumers. The solution is to charge consumers for the pollution they cause by burning fossil fuels.

    Consumers hate that, and will vote against it. However, you can have an equivalent solution by having consumers pay for the conservation through subsidies.

    Net effect, a better environment. Inform yourself.
  25. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: hahahaah!! The trend for oil demand is downwards? China is on fuel efficiency drive?

    Just In, put away the bottle and inform yourself.

    --------

    Facts speak louder than smear.

    Obama oil demand reduction strategy:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/22487/

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/22495/

    China oil demand reduction factoid:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21887/

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081216/electriccar081216/20081216?sname=Autos

    http://www.amsc.com/newsroom/pr.html?id=313

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/25/renewableenergy.alternativeenergy

    Practically every major car maker in the world is working on electric hybrid plug-in cars.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2008/09/03/tata-indica.html

    http://www.motorauthority.com/bmw-developing-electric-car.html

    http://benzinsider.com/2008/03/mercedes-benz-developing-100-electric-car/

    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/11/renaults-electric-car-debuts-in-tel-aviv/

    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080310/FREE/833121356/1023/LATESTNEWS

    http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/09/17/jaguar
    electric_hybrid/

    and we already know about the GM Volt and the Magna Ford world Focus electric.
  26. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Actually, Just In, the ones who are getting the subsidies from the oil sands are the consumers. The solution is to charge consumers for the pollution they cause by burning fossil fuels.

    Consumers hate that, and will vote against it. However, you can have an equivalent solution by having consumers pay for the conservation through subsidies.

    Net effect, a better environment. Inform yourself.

    ------

    Standard PR hack practice to attack me as "uninformed".

    And we should believe you are a consumer rights advocate, just like those who are "socialists" right-to-work advocates.

    Ha ha ha.
  27. J D from Canada writes: Actually, Just In, your moniker should be corrected to Just UnInformed. It fits well.

    How did you like the $350 million handout for the money-sucking AECL? I guess that deserves special treatment for being Ontario-based.

    How about dropping tariffs on foreign cars? No, that would hurt the Ontario car industry. (Though it would help Canadians buy inexpensive, fuel efficient, less-polluting cars...)
  28. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Actually, Just In, your moniker should be corrected to Just UnInformed. It fits well.

    How did you like the $350 million handout for the money-sucking AECL? I guess that deserves special treatment for being Ontario-based.

    How about dropping tariffs on foreign cars? No, that would hurt the Ontario car industry. (Though it would help Canadians buy inexpensive, fuel efficient, less-polluting cars...)

    --------

    More smear and propaganda won't strengthen your position.

    I didn't comment on either nuclear nor tariffs on foreign cars, so please do not put words in my mouth. I don't understand the nuclear angle yet and will need to take the time to do so. As for foreign cars, I have no idea whether there is a tariff. I don't support a tariff. And no, you can't smear me as NDP nor Liberal nor Conservative nor Green, and certainly not the Bloc - I am from Ontario. I am telling it like it is, as an individual with no vested interest.
  29. Just In from Canada writes: If all else fails, it is known practice that PR hacks will pick a fight in order to distract the readers attention.
  30. Just In from Canada writes: With billions of Handout Dollars at stake, I guess the tar sands industry can afford to pay a few dollars to hire PR hacks and lobbyists.
  31. Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Just in,

    All we are saying is Canadian taxpayers need to put their oars in the water and start paddling rather than going along for the ride.

    There are no other solutions that are practical.

    If you are not part of the solution – you’re part of the problem.

    .
  32. J D from Canada writes: Hey Just UnInformed, check this out:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/EIA_IEO2006.jpg

    Amazingly, increasing global population and increasing industrialization is leading to increasing energy consumption - including oil - and increasing carbon emissions.

    Wow. Amazing that Technology Review didn't manage to figure this out. What news!
  33. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Actually, Just In, the ones who are getting the subsidies from the oil sands are the consumers. The solution is to charge consumers for the pollution they cause by burning fossil fuels.

    Consumers hate that, and will vote against it. However, you can have an equivalent solution by having consumers pay for the conservation through subsidies.

    Net effect, a better environment. Inform yourself.

    ---------

    Since Alberta tar sands oil is sold to Americans at global oil market prices, tar sands oil companies cannot charge the sanitizing carbon capture costs to American consumers, and they try to dump this costs on all Canadian tax payers. It is highway robbery.
  34. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Hey Just UnInformed, check this out:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/EIA_IEO2006.jpg

    Amazingly, increasing global population and increasing industrialization is leading to increasing energy consumption - including oil - and increasing carbon emissions.

    Wow. Amazing that Technology Review didn't manage to figure this out. What news!

    ----------

    You think repeating the same lie enough times it becomes the truth, including continuing to smear me as "uninformed"? Canadians are not stupid, and wiki-whatever are clearly unreliable shill sources.
  35. J D from Canada writes: Just UnInformed, think it through. North American Climate Accord. We all pay the right price for energy, no subsidies for pollution. Then work for the same thing through the post-Kyoto accord. The reality is that the world needs energy, and solar/wind just don't cut it.

    So why are you arguing to increase pollution and carbon emissions?

  36. Just In from Canada writes: Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Just in,

    All we are saying is Canadian taxpayers need to put their oars in the water and start paddling rather than going along for the ride.

    There are no other solutions that are practical.

    If you are not part of the solution youre part of the problem.

    --------

    Not really. Try this "guilt trip" of yours on the American consumers of tar sands oil and see whether they are willing to ride and paddle with you up the creek of nowhere. Canadians are not stupid and won't be taken for a ride.
  37. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Just UnInformed, think it through. North American Climate Accord. We all pay the right price for energy, no subsidies for pollution. Then work for the same thing through the post-Kyoto accord. The reality is that the world needs energy, and solar/wind just don't cut it.

    So why are you arguing to increase pollution and carbon emissions?

    --------

    OK. I am going to IGNORE you since you continue to smear me by changing my name/handle.

    You are clearly a tar sands oil PR shill.
  38. Just In from Canada writes: When PR hacks lose the main argument, they will try to distract attention and change the channel.

    This debate isn't about which energy is clean. This debate is about NO HANDOUT.
  39. J D from Canada writes: Alright, Just In. I'll correct your moniker, but of course you'll have to acknowledge the rest of your errors. Fair is fair.
  40. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Alright, Just In. I'll correct your moniker, but of course you'll have to acknowledge the rest of your errors. Fair is fair.

    -----

    I made no errors. I post facts. You post smear and propaganda.

    OK. Really will IGNORE you, even though you bait me with more personal attacks or falsehood.

    Readers are not stupid. They won't be taken for a ride.
  41. J D from Canada writes: I hate the handout to AECL. I hate handouts to the Ontario auto industry. I hate handouts to polluting consumers of oil and coal (and I'm not even going to mention that most of them live in Ontario).

    Oh, so maybe it's ok that others got a few bits too. I guess the net effect is that we're all a bit better off.
  42. J D from Canada writes: Just UnInformed, just because you believe it doesn't make it a fact. Just because you're upset doesn't mean your right. And just because you're not coherent doesn't mean your drunk.
  43. Just In from Canada writes: From the article

    Mr. Flaherty also trumpeted Ottawa's continued support for Canada's nuclear industry with a one-year, $351-million payment to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the federal Crown corporation that is developing a new generation of Candu reactor.

    The budget plan said AECL will use the money to pursue its Advanced Candu Reactor, and the "maintain safe and reliable operations" at the corporation's Chalk River laboratories.

    --------

    Just by googling, I figured out this COULD BE possibly another Hand Out to develop a new nuclear reactor for making tar sands oil.

    http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-1-25/50929.html

    QUOTE

    OTTAWA - Canada may need to turn to nuclear energy as a way of getting the heavy oil in its western tar sands out of the ground without adding seriously to greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said on Thursday.

    "We shouldnt be afraid to look at all forms of clean energy, and if it can dramatically reduce greenhouse gases - it has that potential. we should be open to it," Lunn told Reuters.

    It is ultimately not a federal decision to use nuclear power at the oil sands, but Ottawa can encourage a certain direction, and it also has the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which are blamed for climate change.

    He said discussions were already taking place with industry and the province of Alberta, where the oil sands are found, and he would meet with the province's energy minister soon.

    END QUOTE

    Wow. Next they may call Nuclear Reactor for Fort McMurray a national infrastructure project eligible for hand out.
  44. Just In from Canada writes: Strange in a time of limited financial resources Flaherty could find $351 million dollars for AECL.

    What's the catch?

    Not because provinces outside of Alberta are asking for new nuclear reactors.
  45. Just In from Canada writes: Alberta tar sands interests are not just welfare bums. They are highway bandits.
  46. Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Highway Bandits with guns, I little secret – don’t tell anyone – we didnt register them.

    .
  47. Just In from Canada writes: Natasha Oilsov from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Highway Bandits with guns, I little secret dont tell anyone. we didnt register them.

    --------

    That is a frequently posted well known talking point of Alberta Separatists Manning Day Harper Prentice fake conservatives real welfare bums highway bandits. It is a lame threat. You have any idea what is the population of Canada outside Alberta and Quebec, or even just Ontario alone. Don't think so.
  48. J D from Canada writes: Just Uninformed, just because you wish to live in a cold barn doesn't mean others do too.

    So, exactly what do you suggest is good policy? I don't think you know what that means, but give it a shot.

    I agree with you, though. Tax gas and oil so that the pollution it causes can be dealt with. Ontario's polluting consumers will think it's a dumb idea, but so what.
  49. J D from Canada writes: Hey Just UnInformed, you neocon wannabe. How about cutting EI handouts, how about cutting health and education handouts?

    Actually, you're making a pretty good case that this country needs more education. Not less.
  50. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Just Uninformed, just because you wish to live in a cold barn doesn't mean others do too.

    So, exactly what do you suggest is good policy? I don't think you know what that means, but give it a shot.

    I agree with you, though. Tax gas and oil so that the pollution it causes can be dealt with. Ontario's polluting consumers will think it's a dumb idea, but so what.

    --------

    Don't pretend you care about the environment and try to use the "guilt trip" to win a Carbon Handout. No one believes you.
  51. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Hey Just UnInformed, you neocon wannabe. How about cutting EI handouts, how about cutting health and education handouts?

    Actually, you're making a pretty good case that this country needs more education. Not less.

    --------

    That is so creative calling me neocon wannabe, trying to pretend you are not Alberta Separatists fake conservative real welfare bum highway bandit. No one believes you.
  52. J D from Canada writes: Just UnInformed, are you simply a hater or do you have something to add to the discussion besides hot air?

    Look at the facts. Energy for all Canadians is subsidized, at the expense of the environment. How would you improve the situation? It seems you only want to make it worse.
  53. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Just UnInformed, are you simply a hater or do you have something to add to the discussion besides hot air?

    Look at the facts. Energy for all Canadians is subsidized, at the expense of the environment. How would you improve the situation? It seems you only want to make it worse.

    ------

    Another talking point from the oil patch. No oil man cares about the environment. Only when Alberta tar sands is threatened by the U.S. anti-dirty-oil Democrats would Alberta tar sands interest try to sanitize tar sands oil by dumping the costs of Carbon Capture onto all Canadian tax payers.

    Don't pretend you are an environmentalist. No one believes you.
  54. J D from Canada writes: Just UnInformed, my neo-con friend. What's your solution for climate change? Simply burning more oil and coal just makes things worse.

    Steps in the right direction should be applauded.
  55. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Just UnInformed, my neo-con friend. What's your solution for climate change? Simply burning more oil and coal just makes things worse.

    Steps in the right direction should be applauded.

    ------

    You are getting funnier and funnier. No one believes you.
  56. Just In from Canada writes: Since neither of the two Alberta Separatists oil men or women Natasha or JD refuted my speculation about the $351 million Handout to AECL,

    Posted 28/01/09 at 12:15 AM EST

    it means I was right with my speculation that the $351 million is actually another Handout to support developing a new Candu reactor to extract tar sands oil, again at the expense of all Canadian tax payers.
  57. J D from Canada writes: Just unInformed, you disappoint me. No wit, no knowledge, no ideas. No hope!

    So you hate Alberta. That will get you far in this world.
  58. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Just unInformed, you disappoint me. No wit, no knowledge, no ideas. No hope!

    So you hate Alberta. That will get you far in this world.

    -------

    Another talking point from lame PR hack.

    I don't hate Alberta. I hate BS from tar sands Alberta Separatists who try to break up Canada.
  59. J D from Canada writes: Just unInformed, you're a hater...and a PR hack? That seems to be on your mind.

    I guess that's why you're posting nonsense, you're paid to do so. With your talents, you'll quickly be looking for a new line of work. Try going back to school.
  60. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Just unInformed, you're a hater...and a PR hack? That seems to be on your mind.

    I guess that's why you're posting nonsense, you're paid to do so. With your talents, you'll quickly be looking for a new line of work. Try going back to school.

    -------

    That is silly. You are projecting again. You have no arguments, only smear. I post a lot of supporting facts. No one believes you.
  61. J D from Canada writes: Just unInformed, like most Canadians, I believe climate change is a serious issue. For Canada, doing something about it means doing something to address fossil fuel consumption and production. While more needs to be done, a step in the right direction is worth applauding.

    I've taken you on because you post information which distorts the issue. It misinforms. But you are right that Canadians aren't stupid and they won't be misled.

    So, my hack friend, try to do your job a little better. And if you find an issue you really do care about, make sure you learn something about it before you try to influence others. That way, at least, you'll make a positive contribution instead of just embarrassing yourself. Sorry, chump.
  62. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Just unInformed, like most Canadians, I believe climate change is a serious issue. For Canada, doing something about it means doing something to address fossil fuel consumption and production. While more needs to be done, a step in the right direction is worth applauding.

    I've taken you on because you post information which distorts the issue. It misinforms. But you are right that Canadians aren't stupid and they won't be misled.

    So, my hack friend, try to do your job a little better. And if you find an issue you really do care about, make sure you learn something about it before you try to influence others. That way, at least, you'll make a positive contribution instead of just embarrassing yourself. Sorry, chump.

    ------

    You posted no solid arguments and only smear, grand standing, posturing. No one believes you.
  63. J D from Canada writes: Read the record, Just Uninformed. One way or another, everyone has to pay for the pollution they cause, we can't subsidize it. That's the main point and your simplistic "no handout" argument makes no sense, you're " I hate Alberta" argument is offensive, and your "Ontario is so poor" argument doesn't cut it.

    You're devoid of thoughtful comment, but full of hot air.
  64. Martin Laplante from Ottawa, Canada writes: It seems that Canada will be spending more on INefficiency than efficiency. For those unfamiliar with the subject, Carbon Capture reduces the efficiency of energy use by a large amount, 30% to over 100% reduction in efficiency depending on technology. It is literally putting our money into a hole in the ground at a time when we can't afford this luxury.

    Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics and of economics doom it to failure. Separating the low concentration of impure, hot CO2 emitted from combustion processes requires a large amount of energy. Whatever CO2 you manage to extract and bury is negated by what was emitted to produce the extra energy required to separate and bury it. That's why none of the major CCS project so far have used CO2 that comes from combustion.

    When a panel of experts formed by the US National Research Council reviewed the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Carbon Sequestration Program last year, it concluded that carbon sequestration could not be implemented without a significant carbon tax, and examined carbon taxes of $100 or $300 a ton. Even then the benefits are marginal, and they don't include any environmental or security benefit. To make sequestration a viable alternative you need a high price on emissions. But the taxes that make CCS feasible make other low-emission energy cheaper than fossil fuels. Whatever the price of energy, other sources of energy always give a better return on investment.

    It's not science, it's a PR solution that got out of hand. The money for renewables and actual efficiency was cancelled. This is a great disappointment, especially for Ontario, which stood to be a leader in providing these technologies to the continent and the world. Now the US will certainly leapfrog us in this market thanks to their government's spending.
  65. Just In from Canada writes: J D from Canada writes: Read the record, Just Uninformed. One way or another, everyone has to pay for the pollution they cause, we can't subsidize it. That's the main point and your simplistic "no handout" argument makes no sense, you're " I hate Alberta" argument is offensive, and your "Ontario is so poor" argument doesn't cut it.

    You're devoid of thoughtful comment, but full of hot air.

    --------

    Still no arguments. Still whiny smear. Still hopeless and desperate. No one believes you.
  66. Just In from Canada writes: Martin Laplante from Ottawa, Canada writes: It seems that Canada will be spending more on INefficiency than efficiency.

    When a panel of experts formed by the US National Research Council reviewed the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Carbon Sequestration Program last year, it concluded that carbon sequestration could not be implemented without a significant carbon tax, and examined carbon taxes of $100 or $300 a ton.

    It's not science, it's a PR solution that got out of hand.

    -------

    It is absolutely a PR exercise especially when the costs of such exercise to make dirty tar sands oil salable are to be absorbed by all Canadian tax payers. Then it becomes a Carbon Handout.

    Obama administration has the priority right - energy efficiency, not PR smoke and mirrors.
  67. Just In from Canada writes: See this article:

    theglobeandmail.com

    Russian bear becomes toothless when the oil price is low.

    Obama WILL keep the oil price low, and Russia surrenders.
  68. Just In from Canada writes: Canada's budget lacks the renewables focus of Obama's plan.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/22544/
  69. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Martin is right; CO2 sequestration is expensive and takes energy out of the system that could otherwise be put to good use.

    And if our government decides to force this artificial restriction on industries, ostensibly to benefit taxpayers, then those same governments and taxpayers actually should carry the cost.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top