Correct! The “plan” is just a ruse so that the Liberals will be able to dodge the blame when literally nothing gets done at the grand scale. We’d be smarter to promote “a vegetable garden in every yard” as a national carbon capture strategy; it has zero political value but it makes more sense on every level.
The key to this whole decarbonization thing is ensuring that is sufficiently catalyzed. I’m not sure, but catalyzed appears to be a term referring to funneling large amounts of taxpayer money through LPC-adjacent hands before spraying (the remainder of) it around the countryside in Liberal held ridings.
I think our banker PM may have taken a few chemistry courses with decarbonization and catalyze being injected into his narrative. I may be more cynical about the intended direction from his announcements. I believe he wants to show he is a man of action and change, not just virtual signaling. But is he?
I see more Liberal hubris: trust me I know what’s best and don’t bother me with questions. For example, suddenly there is money for the military, including NATO, and more for Ukraine (all possibly needed and worthwhile), but how do we fund all this? There is no budget to examine, are they are in too much of a hurry spending to produce one? Where is that good banker fiscal discipline? More expenses, no new taxes (yet) = no credibility, to me at least.
And Bill C-5. Looks pretty arbitrary to me. All the existing regulations, their gatekeepers and other barriers stay in place. But if we like your project we will support it if you can gain the required consensus, at least until the groundswell of outrage from our voter base becomes too much for us to bear.
As an investor I would never invest in a project subject to such an arbitrary process. Instead of passing a bill to exempt or shield favoured projects from the existing laws and regulations, let’s change them so that the process is streamlined and transparent so that the private sector can more confidently get on with big things. We don’t need a super-gatekeeper using its criteria-de-jour to decide on what gets to go on – they will be just another bottleneck and add to the uncertainty. But it’s the Liberal way, if a law or regulation isn’t working, add another one rather than improve or scrap what is in place.
Finally, I get to catalyze. So what does Carney mean by this? My take away is that the government puts processes and/or subsidies in place to speed up needed investments, e.g., building affordable housing, by the private sector. The problem I see is that C-5 actually discourages this for the reasons I have mentioned – uncertainty because of arbitrary decisions.
However, they could still provide subsidies, but this crew doesn’t have a particularly good record given the EV battery debacle and green slush fund. And again there is no budget or transparency to support the case for any subsidies.
Can't say I disagree with any of your comments, Brian. My concerns with this government remain in the red zone and I can only hope they prove me horribly wrong.
Your words: "Decarbonization is little more than another sneaky marketing word. Like green, eco, clean, natural and organic". That is the truth. Carney is just playing with words and bamboozling us. He has little intention of building pipelines and considering there are several that all have to 'agree', it likely will never happen. He is feeding us a pile of googly goop.
Thanks as always for an interesting Saturday read.
One other aspect to consider is the AI growth and how much more energy will be required to drive it. This energy must be constant, without interruptions. That means nuclear or hydrocarbons.
Canada exports 50 Mt of coal a year, mostly from BC. When used, that coal produces 150 Mt CO2, which is equivalent to about 20% of Canada's total internal CO2 production. Yet I can imagine a Canada in which new coal mines will be fast-tracked using C-5.
Indeed. Coal is Canada's acceptable dirty little secret. Reminds me a bit of Quebec mining asbestos until 2012 - a couple decades after we knew of its health hazards and began phasing it out in Canada.
what you do need to remember is most ( not quit all) of the coal mined is met coal not thermal coal. Until we have an expectable alternative ( Sweden may be making headway) that met coal is needed. Steel makes the the world.
Good point, Dawn. I recall doing business with Teck a number of years ago before they sold to Glencore - and they made a regular point of differentiating their coal as being metallurgical, since thermal coal was bad for branding.
Decarbonized hydrocarbons make about as much sense as dehydrated water!
Right on, Rick.
Correct! The “plan” is just a ruse so that the Liberals will be able to dodge the blame when literally nothing gets done at the grand scale. We’d be smarter to promote “a vegetable garden in every yard” as a national carbon capture strategy; it has zero political value but it makes more sense on every level.
Quite true.
The key to this whole decarbonization thing is ensuring that is sufficiently catalyzed. I’m not sure, but catalyzed appears to be a term referring to funneling large amounts of taxpayer money through LPC-adjacent hands before spraying (the remainder of) it around the countryside in Liberal held ridings.
Ah, yes. Mark does quite like that catalyzation term also, doesn't he?
Yeah, you get “catalyze “ on your Carney speech bingo card and you’re gonna get blotto.
I think our banker PM may have taken a few chemistry courses with decarbonization and catalyze being injected into his narrative. I may be more cynical about the intended direction from his announcements. I believe he wants to show he is a man of action and change, not just virtual signaling. But is he?
I see more Liberal hubris: trust me I know what’s best and don’t bother me with questions. For example, suddenly there is money for the military, including NATO, and more for Ukraine (all possibly needed and worthwhile), but how do we fund all this? There is no budget to examine, are they are in too much of a hurry spending to produce one? Where is that good banker fiscal discipline? More expenses, no new taxes (yet) = no credibility, to me at least.
And Bill C-5. Looks pretty arbitrary to me. All the existing regulations, their gatekeepers and other barriers stay in place. But if we like your project we will support it if you can gain the required consensus, at least until the groundswell of outrage from our voter base becomes too much for us to bear.
As an investor I would never invest in a project subject to such an arbitrary process. Instead of passing a bill to exempt or shield favoured projects from the existing laws and regulations, let’s change them so that the process is streamlined and transparent so that the private sector can more confidently get on with big things. We don’t need a super-gatekeeper using its criteria-de-jour to decide on what gets to go on – they will be just another bottleneck and add to the uncertainty. But it’s the Liberal way, if a law or regulation isn’t working, add another one rather than improve or scrap what is in place.
Finally, I get to catalyze. So what does Carney mean by this? My take away is that the government puts processes and/or subsidies in place to speed up needed investments, e.g., building affordable housing, by the private sector. The problem I see is that C-5 actually discourages this for the reasons I have mentioned – uncertainty because of arbitrary decisions.
However, they could still provide subsidies, but this crew doesn’t have a particularly good record given the EV battery debacle and green slush fund. And again there is no budget or transparency to support the case for any subsidies.
I rest my case.
Can't say I disagree with any of your comments, Brian. My concerns with this government remain in the red zone and I can only hope they prove me horribly wrong.
Are you saying my 365hp, twin turbo, “EcoBoost” engine isn’t really saving the Earth, but instead just lets me drive fast with a clean conscience?
🤯🤯🤯🤯
Well, Ken - this is just one man's opinion. But I think you should just enjoy the heck out of that machine.
Your words: "Decarbonization is little more than another sneaky marketing word. Like green, eco, clean, natural and organic". That is the truth. Carney is just playing with words and bamboozling us. He has little intention of building pipelines and considering there are several that all have to 'agree', it likely will never happen. He is feeding us a pile of googly goop.
I truly hope we find our way to a place of common sense that sees us expand our O&G - for the good of Canada and the world.
Thanks as always for an interesting Saturday read.
One other aspect to consider is the AI growth and how much more energy will be required to drive it. This energy must be constant, without interruptions. That means nuclear or hydrocarbons.
Thanks, Paul.
Canada exports 50 Mt of coal a year, mostly from BC. When used, that coal produces 150 Mt CO2, which is equivalent to about 20% of Canada's total internal CO2 production. Yet I can imagine a Canada in which new coal mines will be fast-tracked using C-5.
Indeed. Coal is Canada's acceptable dirty little secret. Reminds me a bit of Quebec mining asbestos until 2012 - a couple decades after we knew of its health hazards and began phasing it out in Canada.
what you do need to remember is most ( not quit all) of the coal mined is met coal not thermal coal. Until we have an expectable alternative ( Sweden may be making headway) that met coal is needed. Steel makes the the world.
Good point, Dawn. I recall doing business with Teck a number of years ago before they sold to Glencore - and they made a regular point of differentiating their coal as being metallurgical, since thermal coal was bad for branding.
Good read but I wish that you included sources when listing your facts and figures