Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Energy Superpower Status Threatened As World Shifts Off Fossil Fuel (www.cbc.ca)
Robson Fletcher, reporting for CBC News: Canada's status as an "energy superpower" is under threat because the global dominance of fossil fuels could wane faster than previously believed, according to a draft report from a federal government think-tank obtained by CBC News. "It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status," reads the conclusion of the 32-page document, produced by Policy Horizons Canada. "It's absolutely not pie in the sky," said Michal Moore from the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy. "These folks are being realistic -- they may not be popular, but they're being realistic." Marty Reed, CEO of Evok Innovations -- a Vancouver-based cleantech fund created through a $100-million partnership with Cenovus and Suncor -- had a similar take after reading the draft report.
I predict these views will be censored and modded to -1. For a community that supposedly favors the free and open exchange of ideas, Slashdot isn't very tolerant of opposing views. Voicing my opinion that AGW is a scam will result in my post being censored to -1. If AGW were real, there would be no need to censor dissenting views; the facts would prove the point far better than any moderation. The censorship is necessary because the facts aren't on the side of the AGW evangelists.
no shit sherlock ?
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter. The world will always need hydrocarbons, so they will always be valuable. They are needed for plastics, chemicals and all kinds of useful things besides fuel.
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
said Michal Moore from the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy.
They're everywhere!
What made them think they ever had that?
Anyway, the good news is hearing we are seriously breaking the habit. But energy is a trivial issue... How are we going to use it to distribute water to where it is needed and away from where it isn't?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
When everyone who is threatening to move to Canada actually moves there.
We have more hydroelectricty than we can use... Does this not qualify as renewable energy?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Hey, dumbfuck. Yeah, I'm talking to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
There is no such thing as "cheap renewable electricity."
There would be if Republican-owned corporations didn't charge so much for it.
the Keystone Pipeline on the US Presidential campaign trail.
That dog don't hunt!
I hear global consumption of fossil fuel continues to increase. Can you stop reporting wishful thinking as actual reality. It's incredibly tiresome.
is just wishful thinking from a few years back when Harper was PM. What kind of "energy superpower" can't even export our "energy" resources to global markets? Something that doesn't exist can not possibly be threatened.
$8.3 Billion is not cheap. While it will last for 100 years it will become silted up and is not renewable.
Aside from you being wrong that cheap renewable energy is not feasible now,
you are also wrong that the currently still more expensive forms of renewable energy need tax subsidies.
What they do need is for the carbon-emissions of fossil-fuel-based electricity to be taxed with a sin-tax similar to cigarette taxes. That would level the energy economics playing field in a hurry.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I have to say. We've never been called a Superpower before... of anything.
We're going to wean ourselves off fossil fuels faster than anyone thinks? I'm not sure how that's going to happen.
According to Bloomberg Business, "Electric Cars Could Wreak Havoc on Oil Markets Within a Decade"
Conventional energy will be obsolete by 2030 according to Swedbank: there are four key categories of technologies all of which are improving by double and triple digit basis every year. Each one of them is disruptive in it's own way.
Really, this conclusion could be reached by any well-read adult. We don't need consultants, think-tank's or Schools of Public Policy to tell us the glaringly obvious.
What we need to know is over what timeline. All meaningful economic planning, public policy and governmental strategy is dependent upon the timing of such shifts. Without timing, reports like this are near useless.
It does not matter that the issues of timing are difficult to forecast. Indeed, if you want to prove your bona fides as a useful Public Policy analyst, you must tackle the tough questions. The more answers you can supply to tough questions, the more value you have. If you cannot address difficult issues then you have no value as an analyst. Deal with it.
Otherwise your apparently profound public policy report can be relegated to the scrap heap containing all the other unactionable reports. "Shoes could be obsolete, given conditions!" "Housing may change in the future!" "Cities may become more densely populated, unless they don't!" That's the kind of superficial analysis this particular public policy report competes with.
Give us some timing estimates (a range is perfectly fine) or get outta here. Now get off of my lawn!
In case you missed it, Fort McMurray, the small city where those working in the oil-sands industry in Canada live, was just ravaged by a Boreal forest wildfire. The fire is about the size of the smallest Canadian province. The city is evacuated and oil production is still mostly halted, after a month or so now.
Since the frequency and intensity of wildfires at these latitudes is positively correlated with climate change due to increased greenhouse gases, the residents of this city should take it as a sign to retrain for a job in the green energy economy. I'm not saying I wish a fire on them, but they should seriously take it as an opportunity to rethink their trajectory in life.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
For Canada, there's a simple solution: Hockey-based renewable energy. It's simple.
1) Embed neodymium magnets in hockey pucks.
2) Run coils through hockey ice.
3) Play hockey as usual.
4) Profit.
Moving puck induces current in coils, sufficient to cover Canada's energy needs and allow Canada to continue as a new energy exporter until, and maybe after, cold fusion.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. - Bob Dylan "Subteranean Homesick Blue
I've lived in Alberta for close to 20 years now and the PC government's failure to attempt (to my knowledge) to diversify the economy has reared its head again in the latest bust cycle in the oil and gas industry. Perhaps something like this report, coupled with the low commodity prices will finally wake up the provincial government that its time to actively support other industries here. BC gives tax credits to TV and film production companies and they had a banner year in 2015. I believe Quebec gives tax breaks to game companies and Ubisoft, for example, has a huge number of employees in Montreal.
I work at a software dev company who has no oil and gas ties or customers, and surprise surprise, we are doing well during the downturn here. There is no guarantee of course but if the governments had spent some time, effort and petro dollars into trying to build and attract new industries here it probably wouldn't be quite as bad now as it is.
Oil is just too useful as a chemical feedstock to make so many different things, it's a shame to just burn the stuff.
So yes, Canada's energy superpower status in danger(whatever the hell that is supposed to mean anyways), but the chemicals industry will take up the slack. Also the chemical industry will add value by turning the oil into something useful other than fuel.
Besides, the sooner a nation can get off of a natural resource based economy the less likely they are to suffer from Dutch disease.
I'm looking forward to the day we can tell the Middle East suppliers to shove it.
Table-ized A.I.
When the price of oil dipped down in the last year, that dropped the Canadian dollar, all of which had two effects: it hit the Alberta economy really hard (because of oil companies cutting production) and it was a boon to the Ontario economy (where manufacturing is strong). Suddenly buying manufactured goods from Canada was a lot less expensive, and everyone was hiring in Ontario. In a future where fossil fuels are in less demand, you'll just see exactly the same trend - a lower Canadian dollar meaning more demand for Canadian manufacturing exports. So Canada will be fine, but Alberta's going to become a "have-not" province again. Considering how they lord it over the rest of us when oil prices are high, I don't expect much of the rest of Canada to give a damn.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Only Venesuala and Saudi Arabia have greater oil reserves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But Canada's oil is expensive to recover. If demand for oil drops then so will price and Canada will be sitting on stranded assets. Even at the current price Canada's oil is not economical. Breakeven costs for existing projects such as Kearl Phase 1 stand at US$42 per barrel, with Husky’s Lloydminster (US$28), Cenvous’ Christina Lake ($26) and Suncor operations (US$30.3), WTI has declined to $30 per barrel.
Canada needs demand to grow substantially if it is going to survive - or for supply to dry up elsewhere.
That's mostly true, except I'm pretty certain Saudi Arabia is lying about their proven oil reserves. There's a lot of articles on this. Venezuela I don't think is lying, but I also don't think the government can continue to extract and sell oil as the country is currently collapsing into chaos.
Claiming hydroelectric is not renewable, because it requires regular maintenance is stupid - do you think solar panels last forever? Did you know that wind turbines need to be replaced entirely after 20-25 years?
For that matter, don't you know the Sun will die in just a few billion years and become useless?
1. Build Gen IV nuclear reactor(s) [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor]
2. Get paid to take the rest of the world's Gen III waste, which is burned in the Gen IV to create power
3. Use $$$ sales of power from step 2 to offset capital costs from step (1)
4. Remove the old inefficient hydro dams that are choking the salmon out of existence and genociding the first nations
We must at least consider, study the possibility. Bring new money into the economy. Develop a new generation of physicists and nuclear engineers. Dont bitch about the cost too much: Canada spent around $1B/month on Afghanistan for over 10 years. Make guns or butter. Build empire or civilization. Choose wisely.
Canada's natural nuclear advantage comes from geographical/political stability, wealth of isolated places, highly educated people, natural supply of high quality Uranium in the north and so on ...
Meanwhile we save the food supply, unless of course we want our descendants to live on insects and algae.
Fossils are evil but plastic is so damn useful, if we could just get people to recycle responsibly. Solar cells are made with nasty stuff like arsenic and take more power to burn sand than they will ever produce in their warranty period. Look at Taiwan/China air pollution. Want to live in that?
Wind turbines take a whack of metal/etc that had to get smelted. Probably takes more energy to create a turbine than it ever produces, and they kill alot of bird life. Then theres the creepy moving shadows and noise all the time. Wouldnt want to live near one.
Geothermal's great if you live in Iceland I guess.
Not saying Nuclear's perfect but jeez Gen IV looks awesome compared to the options. How are we going to scale up to support the 12B people we expect to be on the planet by the end of the century???
Exactly. If fossil fuels were actually priced based on environmental and climactic impacts, renewables would look a lot better, but because almost every government on the planet is allowing fossil fuel companies to evade pricing in those impacts, they give those companies and their shareholders a vast subsidy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why do you think Saudi Arabia has been taking their US petro $$ and investing it into the financial markets?
Smart money has been betting on the end of oil for some time.
That's a really stupid definition of 'renewable' then. What does it mean? Solar panels do not last forever, they decrease in output over time until they need to be replaced. Wind turbines need maintenance, and eventually they fail. so, hydroelectric is not renewable because in 100 years it will become silted up? Name one electricity source that has lasted a hundred years.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Do you even hear what you're saying? $8.3 billion for a source of clean energy that will last for 100 years? If you don't think that's "cheap", then you need to go take a look at what a new nuclear plant costs (hint: It's around $9billion). And then you've got the little issue of having to put fuel in it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The only way the demand for fossil fuels will disappear: is if a great segment of the world's population would die or disappear from a nuclear war.
Of course, Trump's foreign policy, xenophobia, and thoughtless words would make that inevitable.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Why? Because resale value is going to become a HUGE deal. Anybody buying a MB, Audi, BMW, Caddy, Lexus, Lincoln, etc are already witnessing the loss of resale value. The number of new luxury sedans have plummeted EXCEPT for Tesla Model S. The cars that it is replacing it not just new ones, but the used ones as well. And do you think that the wealthy wants to buy a car that loses half its value in 1-2 years? Nope.
Then you have MX which is just hitting the market. Within 1 year, you can bet that Luxury SUVs like Escalade, Cayenne, etc will see sales plummet as well.
Now, we have the Tesla M3. It is already making an impact on the nissan leaf and gm volt. Both are low-end cars compared to the M3, but costs similar to it. The M3 already has over 400,000 pre-orders and you can bet that once production really starts, that they will again, not be able to produce enough cars, even when they are making 1M / year (expected by 2020).
Then you see the chinese gov is throwing all sorts of money behind getting chinese billionaires to build new EVs. All 4 of the companies in CA has MAJOR money backing them from the CHinese gov. In this case, they are looking at doing as much damage to western companies, esp. American, as possible.
So, what this means is that by 2025, if not 2020, all new passenger vehicles sold will likely be EVs. Not even hybrids.
Commercial vehicles, will likely take on a series hybrid approach using nat gas in America. That will leave us free to send oil to Europe to help them stop the russian and middle east imports. Canada will likely import to Europe, Japan, and South Korea.
Windbourne (modderating).
I am not talking about maintenance of the turbines. I am taking about the reservoirs becoming silted up and unusable. It takes a long time but it eventually happens.
Which is why I've often suggested that Canada should use it's expertise in CANDU reactors to develop LFTR technology, and become the world super-power in providing clean, efficient, and stable thorium fuel-cycle reactors.
Much more profitable to do this than waste money on F35 fighters
Don't get me wrong, Gen IV sounds cool and all but I don't think that it's to anyone's benefit supporting it over current technology.
Sure, it's something to look forward to in future and fast reactors can burn certain wastes and breed fuels for better sustainability but there are a whole lot of complications to go from where we are now all the way to the advanced fuel cycles needed to sustain Gen IV tech. I say focus on actually achieving a fleet of Gen III before we try to promote Gen IV - on the time scales that matter (particularly for global warming) that is our best bet.
See the real time data for how Ontario achieves this. In 2015, they produced 90% of their energy from non-fossil sources. (60% nuclear + 24% hydro)
"It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status," reads the conclusion of the 32-page document, produced by Policy Horizons Canada.
This is total BS; even with immense investment the world over, wind and solar haven't even made a dent in fossil fuel consumption. If anything, they cement the position of fossil fuels required for backing up their intermittent and unreliable power. See a short video about the reality of Germany's wind and solar, or one of the many articles about Germany's return to coal for providing reliable power. Their attempt to phase out nuclear has been a very expensive failure, and only succeeded in ramping coal consumption, including construction of new plants.
"It's absolutely not pie in the sky," said Michal Moore from the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy. "These folks are being realistic -- they may not be popular, but they're being realistic."
Notice the need to reaffirm their nonsense not once, but three times. The data does not support their position, so they continue to repeat the lie. Sadly, this often works.
It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status.
Hmm...This article just begs the question: Does the US have a power grid that can provide enough sustainable power to meet that demand? Doing some Googling & some math gets us...
A) 2.5 trillion miles driven annually in the US
B) "Electricity becomes the world's primary power source", so we'll call that a majority of miles driven, or 50%, or 1.25 trillion miles
C) If everyone drove the Tesla Model S, they would get 240 miles on a 70kWh battery, or about 3.43 miles / kWh.
D) In order to drive 1.25 trillion miles, we need to have available 1.25 trillion miles / 3.43 miles/kWh = 364.4 billion kWh.
E) The US generates 4 trillion kWh of electricity per year.
F) The US consumes 3.8 trillion kWh of electricity per year. (Worksheet 7.6.)
So, it looks like we have about 200 billion kWh to spare, which is, I'm sorry to say, not enough.
So, how does anyone expect to achieve such a lofty goal if we don't have the infrastructure in place to make it happen? (And if anyone else in the world knows that their nation has the capacity to make it happen within their country, I'd love to know.)
You could be right. It is also possible they have more than they expect to be able to sell before demand for oil disappears. That would explain why they are no longer restricting their output. “The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” - Sheikh Zaki Yamani, previous Saudi Arabian oil minister.
Well, BC in Western Canada does pretty well at power generation through hydroelectric etc. I believe that Alberta is also looking at wind power but that's likely not as effective. Mobile storage may be another concern but they can generally control levels at the dams by adjusting the floodgates.
Petroleum products won't go away, but as a fuel source it may decline. We'll still have a lot of use for such things as plastic, rubber, asphalt, etc which all use petroleum products to some extent.
If you want a fair comparison you should add the following costs;
1. The transmission lines to get the electricity to where it is used. Dams have a tendency to be far from population centres.
2. Maintenance on the generators and transmission lines.
3. Environmental costs from flooding large areas of river valleys.
Nice bit of editing there. The full quote is:
In case you don't know, Cenovus and Suncor are major producers of dirty Canadian tar-sand oil. So a more accurate assessment would be:
Another company with everything to lose by declaring fossil fuels are on the way out is hedging its bets.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I suspect this is exactly the case. They want to see while the getting is good, although I still think they would have made more by keeping prices higher, rather than flooding it and trying to make it up on volume...
Whereas nuclear plants are built downtown in city centers?
Nuke plants don't need maintenance, apparently.
3. Environmental costs from flooding large areas of river valleys.
No environmental costs with nukes. You can use the waste for fertilizer.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Whereas nuclear plants are built downtown in city centers?
There is a big difference between 50 miles and 1,000 miles,
Nuke plants don't need maintenance, apparently.
Never said that. Just said that it needs to be in the comparison.
No environmental costs with nukes. You can use the waste for fertilizer.
See above.
This is pure fantasy.Renewables simply can not do the job. Nuclear is your only non-fossil fuel option. Those are just the facts, if you do just a tiny bit of research to see this. Take a look at Pandora's Promise. Very informative documentary.
The future is and has always been a goddamn threat. People hate change. Which is ironic because change is one thing people cannot control.
Here's the real deal about the future of fossil fuels, and cars in particular. It's sobering. Sit down.
Electric cars make sense for a lot of people, and as a second car for a lot of other people. So they -and hybrids like the Bolt and Prius- will continue to spread. As we transition to electric cars, we are also transitioning to automated driving. This is going to be the huge hit, the asteroid that kills dinosaurs.
Automated cars will be more fuel (battery or fossil fuels, it won't matter) efficient by taking the most direct route from place to place and coordinating with other cars to avoid the need for sitting at traffic lights. This means they will bypass all those places people used to stop on the way. Food outlets, gas stations stores, all sorts of impulse stores are screwed. People won't bother to direct the automated driver to stop. Hell they might even drive by asleep! A LOT of roadside businesses will whither and die.
At the same time automated driving spreads, a lot of fast food places will be installing robotic workers. Between restaurants going out of business and robots replacing people, there is going to be MASSIVE unemployment at the bottom of the workforce.
Automated cars won't crash nearly as much, so body shops and towing services will go out of business too. Electric cars also break down a lot less and when they do, they'll need specialized support, so independant mechanics will also go out of business, or at least have a lot less work.
With accidents down, the auto insurance business will take a huge hit as people no longer have accidents and consequently need less insurance and pay less premiums. A lot of insurance agents will go unemployed.
With fewer crashes, highway deaths and injuries will have a huge decline, putting hospitals at risk if they rely upon auto trauma to fund their operations.
Cities and towns accustomed to writing a lot of traffic tickets will find automated cars won't break nearly as many traffic laws, so revenue will plummet. Many of these places count on speeding ticket revenue and DUI fine revenue to fund the town operations. They're facing a calamity as the money dries up. Tax increases are inevitable.
So the decline of oil is just one change coming. The changes to society from automated driving and the coming ridiculous unemployment will make the decline of oil look like nothing.
Sig for hire.
Canada will still be an energy super power as we have one resource in abundance relevant to renewable energy sources. surface area
With Obama out the situation will change for the better and rapidly. Time to buy KOL (Coal ETF) and URA (Uranium ETF).
In Canada it's all propaganda now. The economy is force fed population growth because the people have stopped reproducing due to political correctness, the state religion. All the ecofuels are subsidized to make them palatable. When the subsidies end, no one will be able to afford them, people will generate power more economically with gas generators.
Higher oil prices would have led to greater investment in "renewables", shortening everything.
It'll take twenty years before the world stops needing as much fossil fuel as it does now. And then africa with want it's own industrial age. Canadian oil sands will wind up being the easiest-access fossil fuels (better work conditions compared to ocean rigs and such), once global usage begins to dip, so it'll survive to the very last customer.
Of course, Canada's got a few million square clicks for wind power -- which is still the stupidest most useless form of renewal energy that's also guaranteed to have even bigger environmental problems than fossil fuels (guess what happens when you slow down the wind). And even more land for solar, should it ever become efficient enough at such latitudes.
But this is all rediculous. There's only one form of environmentally-sourced renewal power that could ever power modern civilization, and it's so obvious.
I'll give you a hint: every other energy-generation technique to date generates electricity from something, usually turbines and usually driven by boiling water. Wouldn't it be fantastic if we didn't need to generate the electricity that we need from anything? Wouldn't it be great if the electricity that we need were just produced for us directly by mother nature, for free, and fell from the sky as pure and abundant electricity? Say, millions and millions of times per year.
Ah, to dream.
You are the funniest thing on the internet right now. When I stop laughing I might be able to see again.
Already paid for? Oh that just cracks me up!
I predict these views will be censored and modded to -1. For a community that supposedly favors the free and open exchange of ideas, Slashdot isn't very tolerant of opposing views. Voicing my opinion that man-boy love is healthy will result in my post being censored to -1. If man-boy love were exploitative, there would be no need to censor dissenting views; the facts would prove the point far better than any moderation. The censorship is necessary because the facts aren't on the side of the anti-pedophilia evangelists.
FTFY
Maintainance. Shovels. Byebye silt.
Idiot.
Nope. Your math makes incorrect assumptions. At night, only a fraction of the power available is consumed. That's where the energy for recharging can / will be generated.
We generate 4 trillion kwh because there's little load at night (comparatively speaking); the ratio is about 2:1 day:night. So, plenty remaining to charge systems that can be charged at night -- and that's the very nature of storage systems. They can be charged at a time they are not actually in use. Regardless if it is at a primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. level of distribution.
They're not flooding the market to get volume, they're flooding the market to shut down higher cost producers.
It's not even really "environmentalists" that are the issue, it's career protesters. There was in interview on the news a few months ago about a women who was illegally) picketing one of the big hydroelectric projects. She was talking about how it was affecting locals, jobs, and driving up costs and etc etc. Most of her articles were complete bunk too as local power rates were in fact lower than most of the rest of the country and are in the third lowest in the CONTINENT.
The best part is when she was asked about where exactly she's from, and it turns out that she wasn't even from the province, or even the COUNTRY. Yes, she came thousands of miles to protest one of the cleanest varieties of energy projects that was nowhere near her and had nothing to do with her or anyone she was close/related to. But hey, there was going to be music, hot-dogs, and dancing at the protest (again, she mentioned all this, inviting people to come join), so why not come up and have a big party!
At the very least she is ignorant, but I fear that many of these people are not only clueless but actively being used by others to forward their own agenda. Seems it's pretty easy nowadays for a big corp to get a bus-load of people to "protest" something while they themselves hide in the shadows.
Canada is a third world country that doesn't know it.
What I mean by that is, the economy is very fragile; it relies incredibly heavily on primary resources. There is pathetically little quaternary industry. Honestly, it is difficult to think of many Canadian R&D companies that are world players, in spite of it being the 10th largest economy in the world: RIM (now Blackberry, we all know how that's been going), Bombardier, Ubisoft Montreal (seriously that's the 3rd one I could come up with).
Here in Calgary (where all the big O&G companies are based) we used to have a decent tech sector, but that died 10-15 years ago. Everybody just kinda shrugged and said "Meh, we got oil.". We're a one trick pony, and everyone's bored of our act.
Not only that, but even within the oil-sands, there was such a pig-headed attitude towards innovation. They would rather do things the old and expensive way because they trusted it more. The number one priority was keeping the rig running: barrels per minute * price per barrel, that's all that mattered. So if you came to them with a new product that was 10x faster, 10x cheaper, 10x smaller, etc., they just look at you and say "It looks different from the one I'm using." I wish I was kidding.
If the oil-sands had spent some of the time innovating and reducing the cost of production, while they had the money to do so, they may not be in such a terrible situation as they are now. "Oil will never drop below $100." Now they're scrambling to cut costs just to stay alive. Well guess what, you can't improve production costs overnight, but you can layoff thousands of people.
Imagine how great it would be if we (Western nations) could tell the Saudis what they could do with their oil surplus? Nope, instead we've got to pander to one of the most brutal dictatorships in existence. All of our leaders (Obama, Harper, Hollande, Cameron, and more) go to "pay their respects" at the funeral of a man whose government routinely punishes rape victims worse than the rapists themselves; a government that is one of the (if not THE) major instigator of Islamic terrorism worldwide, both directly and indirectly through the spread of Wahhabism.
This entire problem has been generated by the Saudis, to crush any competition from producers who can't compete at lower oil prices. They don't even have us by the balls. We're squeezing our own balls, and thanking them for the privilege.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
The cold hard fact is that we're past the tipping point. This is for the species, boys and girls.
If Canada wants to survive, they need to get rid of all tax subsidies, tax exemptions, depreciation, and tax exclusions for all fossil fuels, no matter what they are.
And take any resulting funds and plow them into First Nations job creation in building renewables.
All renewables. Solar, wind, hydro, forest waste biofuel.
Not pipelines
Adapt. You have very little time.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Meh, when the oil is no longer economical to produce, they'll turn their efforts back to Uranium and become Energy super power again.