Climate Change, Carbon Taxes, Decarbonization and ENGOs – Page 43

Germany’s dirty little coal secret – by Tom Morton (Australian Broadcasting Corp. – September 14, 2016)

September 14, 2016

http://www.abc.net.au/

Germany’s reputation as a pioneer of clean, green energy seems a far cry from the reality on the ground in the village of Atterwasch. It’s been called one of the greatest social experiments in German history, comparable with the process of reunification after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

That social experiment — known as Energiewende, or “energy transition” — is a living reality in the centuries-old village of Atterwasch, in the eastern German region of Lusatia, close to the Polish border.

Next to the village church, which dates back to 1294, the rectory roof sports an impressive rack of solar panels. The solar array recently won an “Ecumenical Environmental Award” from the Ecumenical Council of Berlin-Brandenburg.

Too much of a good thing — how Ontario’s Liberals bungled the green energy file – by Jon W. Kieran (National Post – September 3, 2016)

September 13, 2016

http://news.nationalpost.com/

Ontario set an all-time peak electricity demand of 27,005 megawatts (MW) 10 years ago this summer. At the time, rising demand and plans to retire its coal-fired power plants dominated provincial energy policy. What followed was optimism for a new energy policy, focused on the ambitious procurement of large wind and solar installations. I felt great pride in helping to lead an industry that would make Ontario’s power system clean, responsive and cutting edge.

What a difference a decade makes. Intrusive policy and poor implementation are largely responsible for the energy market debacle Ontarians face today. But there is no excuse now for buying more mega-projects when our power supply is saturated and hydro bills are skyrocketing.

Coal-fired power generation effectively disappeared after 2010, by which time Ontario’s electricity demand had already started to plummet. Demand has fallen 13 per cent in the past 10 years, including consecutive reductions in each of the past five years. In 2016, Ontario will consume less electricity than in 1997.

Alberta the new coal-burning canary – by Gillian Steward (Toronto Star – September 8, 2016)

September 8, 2016

https://www.thestar.com/

Premier Notley’s plan to phase out coal-fired electrical plants could be a model for Trudeau to use with other provinces

Alberta is planning to phase out all its coal-fired electricity plants by 2030. Now the federal government has confirmed it wants other provinces to do the same thing.

This is a big turnaround, for sure. Alberta was never considered a leader when it came to carbon reduction strategies before Premier Rachel Notley and her NDP government were elected just over a year ago.

But now Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are using Alberta’s climate change action plan as a model for other provinces that still burn coal to produce electricity — namely Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — and intend to keep doing so until the 2040s.

Provinces balk at federal push to accelerate phasing-out of coal power – by Shawn McCarthy (Globe and Mail – September 02, 2016)

September 2, 2016

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

OTTAWA — The Liberal government is pushing to accelerate the phase-out of coal-fired power across the country as part of its pan-Canadian climate strategy, sources said on Thursday.

Ottawa made the proposal – which would move up the timeline for eliminating electricity generated at coal-fired plants from the current goal of about 2040 – at talks with the provinces on the climate plan. No new deadline has been set yet.

Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, which include coal in their power plans beyond 2030, say such a move could leave them with worthless technology and drive up electricity rates. New Brunwick also expects to use coal until 2040, and its utility opposes an earlier deadline, which it also says could increase prices.

Canada — and particularly Alberta’s oil industry — paying higher price for climate change policy than U.S. – by Claudia Cattaneo (Financial Post – August 26, 2016)

August 26, 2016

http://business.financialpost.com/

As Alberta struggles with its most devastating recession ever, a new study highlights why different climate change policy choices made by Canada and the United States point to continued hardship for Canada’s top oil producing province.

The two trading partners are focusing on different areas for GHG reductions and are using different policy tools because of their unique resource endowments, geography, climate, history and politics, according to the study by IHS Energy, led by Kevin Birn.

In the U.S., the front line is power generation from coal, because that is its largest source of emissions. In Canada, the bull’s eye is on oil and gas, and particularly the oilsands.

What the Backlash Against Coal Feels Like to a West Virginian Miner – by Adrienne Green (The Atlantic – August 17, 2016)

August 18, 2016

http://www.theatlantic.com/

Gary Campbell reflects on the pride America once reserved for those who helped fuel its growth.

For decades, coal was one of the most influential industries in America, powering businesses, heating homes, and providing many rural communities with well-paid, often unionized jobs. But since then, researchers arrived at the consensus that mining coal is bad not only for the environment and the climate, but public health too—which has prompted a backlash that has damaged the industry.

The New York Times, for example, reports that coal production is headed toward its lowest point in 35 years. Also, three of the largest coal producers in the country have declared bankruptcy in a six-month span, and since 2014, more than 191,000 U.S. miners have lost their jobs.

In West Virginia, stricter environmental controls and the availability of natural gas has resulted in widespread job losses and mine closures.

The carbon tax debate is about the size of government – by Peter Foster (Financial Post – August 11, 2016)

August 11, 2016

http://business.financialpost.com/

I would like to thank Stephen Gordon for responding (“This isn’t about the size of government.” August 9) to my column (“Dr. Gordon needs to learn.” August 4) in response to his August 2 article, “Conservatives need to learn.”

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel did a sound job in Wednesday’s Post (“Serious questions about GHG policy”) of pointing to some of the flaws in Professor Gordon’s reasoning, but I feel I also have to respond once more, not least because Gordon seems to be under the impression that I agree with him. I do not, but appreciate the chance to have another bite at the climate policy watermelon.

Gordon shifts somewhat in his response from accusing conservatives of “unreasoning tax hatred” to unreasoning hatred of big government.

Donald Trump Pledges to Roll Back Energy Regulations, Bolster Coal Industry – by Amy Harder (Wall Street Journal – August 8, 2016)

August 9, 2016

http://www.wsj.com/

In address to Detroit Economic Club, GOP nominee paints broad picture of industry improvements

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump promised Monday to repeal a host of energy and environmental regulations, save the coal industry and lift restrictions on energy sales.

But many of those promises may be challenging to fulfill. A new president cannot easily cancel most regulations, which require a lengthy, exacting process to enact or withdraw.

More broadly, many of the coal industry’s woes are driven by world-wide market trends that are likely to persist regardless of the plans of any particular president.

The transition to a low-carbon economy should be avoided – by Peter Foster (Financial Post – August 9, 2016)

August 9, 2016

http://business.financialpost.com/

“The transition to a low-carbon economy” is a mantra mouthed by almost every political party, environmental group, global bureaucracy and media outlet. It is invoked not just as a policy prescription but as a moral signpost. However, like all the catchphrases of the Big Green Agenda – sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, climate crisis, environmental justice, social licence, etc. etc. – it demands trenchant analysis.

Free markets are always in the process of transition due to innovation and ingenuity, but the low-carbon transition is to be forced. Its great proponents are the enforcers, and we are talking about something far more radical than merely the way we generate energy. Leading Transitionistas such as the late Maurice Strong and UN climate Suprema Christiana Figures have admitted that they want a fundamental change in the global economic and political system.

Whenever I hear such people assert both the necessity and viability of the Great Transition, I think of the introduction to my old paperback copy of Joseph Schumpeter’s great book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, which was first published in 1942.

Zero emissions bio-fuel myth ignores environmental costs of production – by Gwyn Morgan (Globe and Mail – August 1, 2016)

August 2, 2016

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

My last column pointed out that electric cars are only as “green” as the fuel used to generate the electricity they consume. For internal combustion-powered vehicles, much of the focus has been on trying to reduce carbon emissions by adding ethanol to gasoline and vegetable oil to diesel.

These “bio-fuels” are sourced mainly from cereal grain and vegetable oil. Ethanol is manufactured by fermenting and distilling grain, while vegetable oil comes mainly from palm trees. Bio-fuel production has become an enormous global industry producing some 100 billion litres annually. Mandatory ethanol and vegetable oil standards have been enacted in 64 countries.

But are bio-fuels really greener than the fossil fuels they displace? Answering this question needs to start with correcting the popular misconception that burning bio-fuel produces significantly lower emissions than gasoline or diesel.

Alberta to audit coal mines to ensure there’s money for cleanup – by Tracy Johnson (CBC News Calgary – July 28, 2016)

July 28, 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/

Companies must post a deposit, but it may fall short of the actual cost of reclamation

As Alberta moves away from coal-fired electricity, the provincial government is trying to ensure it will not be on the hook to clean up old coal mines once they stop operating. The Alberta Energy Regulator is planning to audit nine coal mines beginning by mid-September to ensure that each operator has the security on hand to reclaim the property.

The AER said it is looking for a contractor to “validate that the approval holder’s … security deposit is sufficient for the liability cost of suspension, decommissioning, remediation, monitoring and surface reclamation,” according to a request for proposal posted this month.

In its climate change plan released last November, the provincial government said it will no longer be dependent on coal-fired power by 2030. That means several plants will be shut down many years before their operators had planned.

The carbon-pricing crowd finally admits just how much pain Canadians are going to feel – by Peter Foster (Financial Post – July 28, 2016)

July 28, 2016

http://business.financialpost.com/

Having last year commended the provinces for running off in all policy directions on climate, the self-appointed Ecofiscal Commission is now stressing how important it is that they all be guided to the same destination, with Justin Trudeau as the good shepherd, and the commission as lead consultant on sheepdog training.

The tight policy pen into which they wish to restrict the country is that of “carbon pricing,” an issue that continues to heat up the wonkasphere as federal-provincial working groups fight over how to address the national emissions-reduction commitments reaffirmed by the Trudeau Liberal government in Paris last year.

One suspects that the average person spends little or no time thinking about carbon pricing, mainly because she hasn’t seen much of it yet. Ontario has certainly inflicted conspicuous damage on its economy in the name of climate control, but that is just a fraction of the economic “stringency” — i.e., pain — required to meet those Paris commitments: a 30 per cent emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030.

NEWS RELEASE: Northern Mining Industry Applauds Premiers’ Stance on Carbon Price

July 27, 2016

(Yellowknife, NT – July 27, 2016) On behalf of the northern minerals industry, the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines applauds the July 21 joint announcement made by the premiers of Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories that Canada’s climate change goals must be met in a way that “does not negatively impact northern costs of living, undermine food security or threaten emerging economies.”

Mining and exploration today constitutes the major share of the territories’ economies by employing thousands of workers, investing billions of dollars into northern business and paying significant taxes to public and Aboriginal governments. Mining and exploration have helped build a northern middle class. However, a significant infrastructure deficit and high operating costs put the North at a competitive disadvantage to southern Canada and other jurisdictions.

“Like our communities, our exploration and mining industry faces costly challenges, including a heavy reliance on diesel energy for heat and power,” says Chamber President Gary Vivian, “and this adds significantly to higher costs. Thus our concern with any new initiatives that propose to increase operating costs and that reduce our ability to compete globally for capital investment funding.”

Anti-Keystone XL group takes first shot at its new target: Energy East – by Claudia Cattaneo (Financial Post – July 26, 2016)

July 26, 2016

http://business.financialpost.com/

The big U.S. green group that led the assault against Keystone XL is firing its opening salvo Tuesday against Energy East, joining an already-crowded field of opponents and proving Alberta’s and Canada’s climate change plans are failing to moderate anti-pipeline campaigns.

The New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is holding a telephone press conference to talk about a report it prepared “documenting TransCanada’s plan and discuss the potential harm if it goes forward to communities (including those that depend on fishing), iconic species (among them whales), special places and the climate.”

In a news advisory, the NRDC paints Energy East as even worse than KXL. Both pipelines are proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada Corp.

How Alberta’s new oilsands adviser dreamed up the ‘Great Bear Rainforest’ to rein in our resources – by Peter Foster (Financial Post – July 15, 2016)

July 15, 2016

http://business.financialpost.com/

Justin Trudeau keeps saying that B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest is “no place for a pipeline.” This assertion has no more rational basis than “Four legs good, two legs bad,” or “Because it’s 2015.” It does, however, reflect the extraordinary success of the radical environmental movement in controlling, or stopping, economic development by rebranding — or claiming guardianship over — great swathes of Canada, and infiltrating the political system.

Trudeau’s chief adviser is Gerald Butts, former head of WWF Canada. Go to WWF Canada’s website and you will find the claim that the Great Bear is, guess what, “no place for an oil pipeline.”

Radical greens scored another, and closely related, victory this week with the appointment of Tzeporah Berman, co-founder of ForestEthics (now known as STAND) and former co-director of Greenpeace’s global climate and energy program, as co-chair of the panel appointed by the Alberta NDP government to look at how its cap on greenhouse gas emissions will work.