Slashdot Mirror
Canada Plans To Phase Out Coal-Powered Electricity By 2030 (theguardian.com)
Last week, French president Francois Hollande announced that France will shut down all its coal-fired power plants by 2023. This week, Canada's environment minister, Kathleen McKenna, announced that Canada plans to phase out its use of coal-fired electricity by 2030. The Guardian reports: [McKenna] said the goal is to make sure 90% of Canada's electricity comes from sustainable sources by that time -- up from 80% today. The announcement is one of a series of measures Justin Trudeau's Liberal government is rolling out as part of a broader climate change plan. Trudeau also has plans to implement a carbon tax. "Taking traditional coal power out of our energy mix and replacing it with cleaner technologies will significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, improve the health of Canadians, and benefit generations for years to come," McKenna said. Four of Canada's 10 provinces still use coal-based electricity. Alberta had been working toward phasing out coal-fired electricity by 2030.
They don't even use the word "electricity" up there. They call it "hydro".
maybe for producing power for Canada. But they'll keep the coal-fired plants for selling power to the US, and probably get a smokin' deal [no pun intended] for doing so from DT.
And here in Saskatchewan (the one province against these measures) the temperature is 10âf above normal and we're getting rain when we've usually had a foot of snow. Funny.
Coal is the lame duck. It should be easy to get rid off it.
Natural Gas? No way we are giving it up. Imagine heating up all these homes in the winter with anything other than natural gas.
export the pollution but keep the money
I think you should be modded "-1 fucking ignorant moron".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't live there, but it sounds like a good thing.
Yes, Saskatchewan has the last pseudo-skeptic Premier in the country. Of course, the pseudo-skeptics like Postmedia (the Canadian oil industry's advertising branch masquerading as a newspaper chain) is cheering for Trump to kill the US's involvement in the Paris agreement, and naturally insisting "Well, there's no point to Canada fighting climate change, because the US won't".
Meanwhile, the very same newspaper chain is reporting that the Arctic is 20 degrees warmer than normal for this time of year.
I keep thinking that some point really soon the mounting evidence of serious climate shifts will override even the hardest critics, but then again, AGW pseudoskepticism has become a sort of a cult of its own, which follows the same bizarre and idiotic credo of the Creationists, both groups declaring almost every other day "Any day now, that nasty scientific theory I hate is going to be disproven."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Looking out my window I see frozen nitrogen falling like snow into a darkness that has never felt the warmth of a star. This global warming is a lie!
Wait... wrong channel.
I see sandworms. Yep, global warming.
No, we're not heading for another ice age, and no "real scientific evidence" proves it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The Liberals of Canada would just fuckin off themselves already. Ditto for the Ontario liberals.
See here. So good luck with that. There are limits to the amount of pollution folks will tolerate. China and India have long since reached those limits.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Because there is still ice at the poles, we are still in an ice age.
I don't live there, but it sounds like a good thing.
It's a good thing until it turns into drought.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Yes ... let's keep kicking those environmental issues down the road. Fourteen years should give plenty of opportunity to blame some other government when this (and many other distant promises) don't actually happen ...
Your own private definition of "ice age"? Suggest you try this one instead: ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are in an interglacial period
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I think you should be modded "-1 fucking ignorant moron".
Minor gripe here, he should be modded "-1 gelded ignorant moron" that way he won't pass on the stupid to the next generation. Other than that I agree with you completely.
Unless you're in the tropics, winter without snow is never a good thing. Snow is beautiful, baby! Six months of freezing drizzle is the worst thing ever.
I don't live there, but it sounds like a good thing.
By many measures, Canada and Russia are the biggest "winners" from global warming. They benefit from warmer temps, longer growing seasons, more land in the cultivation zone, etc. So it is a bit ironic that Canada is making commitments to reduce CO2, while America (a big net loser) is backsliding.
> as I write this post, it's snowing heavily outside and there's over a foot of snow on the ground.
So because it's cold somewhere, global warming doesn't exist, excellent logic. Countervailing point: When I moved to Vancouver 30 years ago nobody needed air conditioning and winters saw about 1-2 weeks of snow. The last 10 years there's been annual runs on all stores in the summer where they can't keep air conditioners in stock, and I haven't seen a single flake on the ground in 6 years.
However, as you wrote that post it is also TWENTY DEGREES warmer than it should be in the arctic.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/north-pole-20-degrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends
Note, that's also the National Post, the right wing rag of Canada, so if THEY are publishing it, there must be some fire behind that smoke.
I guess it's a tribute to your prowess that I can't tell whether your post is trolling or sarcasm.
As I write this post, it's snowing heavily outside and there's over a foot of snow on the ground.
Looking out your window also proves that the world if flat you ignorant twat.
When the fossil fuel dividends finally start to dry up due to more and more competitive renewables, so will much of the yelling fade. The only ones left will be the poor tools who were zealots without getting paid for it.
Someone had to do it.
I keep thinking that some point really soon the mounting evidence of serious climate shifts will override even the hardest critics, but then again, AGW pseudoskepticism has become a sort of a cult of its own, which follows the same bizarre and idiotic credo of the Creationists, both groups declaring almost every other day "Any day now, that nasty scientific theory I hate is going to be disproven."
I think that calling them pseudoskeptics bestows too much grace on them. What they really are is anti-science denialists.
And they (like the Creationists) are not waiting for their least-favorite scientific theory to be disproven. They simply reject the parts of science that are inconvenient to them.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
not unless they have more bombs than us anyway. Reparation payments are made by folks who lack military and/or economic power. The United States has both. Given the enormous natural resources we have that's not likely to change. We're also the only nation with a proper navy (though China's catching up).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Coal is the least efficient and highest polluting method of power generation in the commercial market and everyone should be trying to eliminate it everywhere on the planet. If there was ever one method of power generation to eliminate, it's coal power.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Trump 2020.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't know where the hell you've been in Vancouver because I live there as well. It hasn't snowed much in a couple of years but a few years go I was shoveling a foot of snow every week out of my driveway. Weather comes and goes.
Look, all the *other* cars ahead of us have hit that brick wall there, so we have more road to ourselves. Why should we apply the brake if we have so much road to ourselves..... crash. Damn momentum, the brakes are there to SLOW DOWN the rate of increase, they don't bring it to a dead stop at some magic place.
Why would it stop magically at the point where Canada gains more fertile land?
How would Canada stop sea rise flooding its cities even before this magic level?
Wishful thinking?
Sorry, that is the exact thing I was trying to say (from memory reading it a long time ago. IANAC).
And to continue the quote from wikipedia...the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.
Do they count hydrocarbon exports in this? If I'm not burning any myself, but I'm selling them to others, is that any better?
I don't live there, but it sounds like a good thing.
By many measures, Canada and Russia are the biggest "winners" from global warming. They benefit from warmer temps, longer growing seasons, more land in the cultivation zone, etc. So it is a bit ironic that Canada is making commitments to reduce CO2, while America (a big net loser) is backsliding.
A lot of Russia is trapped, frozen methane and an increasing amount of it is thawing and venting. Not a good thing if it increases. Canada has been seeing more & larger forest fires and coupled with the die-off of trees from infestation, wildfires are going to get worse over time.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
"They simply reject the parts of science that are inconvenient to them"
I keep hoping some of them will find gravity inconvenient.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The north is mostly rock covered in a little dirt, not helpful for growing crops. If and when the perms frost will melt, it's going to release a ton of green gases as well. As for warmer temps, it will lead to less snowfall and in turn more arid summer with water shortages for the crops.
France and Germany are removing all fossil fuel not just coal. Canada needs a deeper commitment as does the US. We also need to be planting tens of millions of trees and bamboo as well. Conditions in California are so bad that we will probably have to find unusual methods to irrigate forests in California, as they are rapidly losing all of their forests. But let's all chant together. There is no global warming ! After all Frankentrump has declared it so. Or is it Trumpenstein?
And as I look out the window I see blasting sunshine and 40C* temperatures, so I can only conclude that your part of the planet must have snapped off and is now drifting somewhere out past pluto. Either that or we're in different hemispheres, but that's probably just crazy unscientific groupthink eh?
*100+F or some-such in archaic units.
so setting up a 10-15 year game plan so its phased out and lowers job loss ...obama shoulda done this instead of dropping the hammer on a whole industry
If only our government was smart and set some policy settings encouraging the building of renewables (we have plenty of places in this country that would be perfect for baseload solar setups plus wind power, biofuels, geothermal and more) rather than digging yet more coal out of the ground and burning it (or using coal seam gas which is almost as bad)
Note, that's also the National Post, the right wing rag of Canada, so if THEY are publishing it, there must be some fire behind that smoke.
National Post hasn't been right-wing for almost 3 years. Just a FYI. They decided to start pushing lefty agendas and people are fleeing in droves from the paper. Just like they've fled Toronto Star and Globe and Mail. NAPO in it's wisdom decided to even double down, and subscriber and page views continue to drop.
I live in Ontario, we've got 2cm on the ground you're welcome to take. Then again, you dig back through the historical records and you'll quickly find that your weather is normal. The snow was not. Just a heads up though, plotting actual nominal weather for BC is pretty hard, being that most of the data is less then 150 years old.
Om, nomnomnom...
That's quite good, funny too. You must expend a lot of thought on this stuff.
Weather is not climate and Global warming doesn't mean that everywhere gets warmer all the time; the term "climate change" is better as it discourages such misunderstandings.
I thought you science-y people always tell us knuckledraggers not to equate weather with climate. Which is it?
"Trump 2020."
Highly doubtful.
They benefit from warmer temps, longer growing seasons, more land in the cultivation zone, etc.
I wouldn't be so fast at calling that simply benefits - when the permafrost thaws, it causes a large number of issues, such as soil instability, ecological upheavals etc etc, not to mention the potentially huge release of methane from gas hydrates and other sources that are now kept frozen. Warmer climate may sound good, but there will be a transition period in which things are going to look grim, and it won't be over in a few years - it can probably go on for centuries.
After Americans find he's sold the roads, bridges, etc. from his infrastructure "expenditure" to companies (and given them tax reductions for the privilege of owning these assets), it isn't clear he'll have a mandate for anything except the retirement home...which he'll have built for himself at government expense and for which he'll charge admission for visits.
Well, we more or less assume you'll come to accept evolution to some degree, but it is clear being "knuckledraggers", it hasn't yet happened for you.
This is the biggest nonsense you ever wrote.
Spring starts how many days earlier in Canada and Russia? One day? Two days?
What about winter? Yes winter is significantly later in terms of temperature. But not regarding daylight.
And the extended 'warmths' is irrelevant: harvest time is when harvest time is.
In other words: the climate change has no effect right now on food production. Perhaos in 20 years when we can plant differnet crops that fitt the new climate and has a better yield.
But I doubt it. Limiting factor in the far north is sunlight, not temperature.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
... Trump will ramp up coal based energy production big time. Let's make America dirty again!
Uhhhhh. What? /facepalm
we call this not being selfish.
Hmm?
Yes and no.
Perhaps a bit of a gamble that didn't pay off and perhaps it could have been implemented better, but the environmental impacts are real. Unfortunately so is the economic impacts. It isn't exactly short term thinking, but the negative impacts are. Could still see some longer term gain. What is at odds are those generation contracts that basically subsidize green generation in Ontario making it attractive to investors. The idea was to bring "green" jobs to Ontario. However most of the generation stations that are wind or solar have little staff outside of initial construction, and most of the material is produced outside of Ontario and imported in. Had they perhaps attached some strings as to number of jobs, or percentage of Ontario made material it might have been more effective.
At any rate, the entire blame can't be put on the Liberals (though another example of total blame might be the politically motivated gas plant scandal to the tune of 2 Billion I believe)... Power generation and specifically Hydro One (and whatever it was called before that) has been mismanaged by both political stripes over the years. Look at what the employees make at these "corporations" in addition to CEO and executive compensation... I recall long before the Liberals took power having to pay "debt repayments" as part of my bill which is ridiculous. The whole privatization of the industry by the Conservatives was a huge bungle, not to mention the distribution services that preyed on consumers so much that they actually had to make a law specifically to help consumers from being ripped off by private distribution companies.
So yeah, there is some blame to share, but the Liberal green strategy isn't the only cause, and at least as said there has been some positive environmental impacts.
Lastly, "putting farmers out of business"? Really. I doubt it. Is farming really that electrically intensive an operation? I know in Northern Ontario they made the same point about the forestry pulp and paper industry, which is a bit more credible as it is much more power intensive... However even with subsidies you have to wonder just how uncompetitive they are if their margins are so slim and perhaps while power increases highlight the issue, it is a bit more complicated than that.
power source that it has not developed. If developed Canada could sell the excess to the US.
Albertan here. No, global warming is bad for us. In the south, where a lot of land is cultivated for hay and animal feed, it's been a dustbowl, there were news stories about ranchers selling off their cows for pennies on the dollar, otherwise they would starve to death. In the west, the warmer temperatures mean that the pine beetle has breached the mountains and is now in Alberta forests, this bug kills pine trees dead, in Yoho there are vast forests that have been killed by the beetle. The bug is kept in check naturally by cold temperatures.
In the north, where there are forests larger than some American states, forest fires unlike anything we have ever recorded has ripped through the area and one city, 60.000 people were forced to evacuate as a forest fire leveled 20% of the city, Canada's most expensive natural disaster.
In the central region, where I live, farmers are just now finishing pulling in their crops because of unseasonable rain and general crap weather.
In my city, there is huge concern over increased rainfall because our infrastructure was never designed for it. The city recently released previously restricted flood plain plans and I found out that my house is on the very tip of a giant lake that would appear in the 1 in 100 year storm scenario, and all of my neighbors across the street would be underwater. We are expecting the 1 in 100 year storm any old day now, next July is a likely date.
Given a choice, any Albertan would go back to the way things were.
The entire Arctic circle being warmer isn't merely a weather disturbance.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Getting rid of coal is obviously good news, but somehow it feels like the government is throwing a bone to those pesky environmentalists so they keep shut while the oil industry happily carries on with its catastrophic exploitation of oil sands in Alberta and elsewhere...
Bullshit.
I can only imagine the reasoning behind running away from coal, how does one actually use the word sustainability and any other Technology other than coal? Scientists have worked tirelessly to produce clean burning coal plants and Cole is abundant, Coal employees people. If you look at this from a statistical standpoint and compare it against things like nuclear energy I think it is pretty clear that Coal is far more sustainable. I'm sure nuclear power is and option however with our government agencies being bought off regulating these companies is a challenge and they will only return as much as they have to into the business to maintain operations. The United States Nuclear Power Plants are aged and it is questionable that they have been maintained properly. One disaster at a nuclear power plant throws that whole sustainability equation out the window. Now let's look at solar energy now here's a joke, any of you people in technology have to be able to see that solar energy is a nightmare in proportions, It does not scale and is it expensive. Now, natural gas this is a wonderful resource, however this resource is absolutely destroying something far more precious than polar ice, it is a definite whereas, climate change and global warming is just a theory and that precious commodity is absolutely essential for life, that is water. Fracking for natural gas to which President Bush and Pres. Obama along with Dick Cheney (heavily invested in these companies) Open the floodgates with little to no oversight and regulation for this destructive form of extracting natural gas. These companies have been allowed to exploit our federal lands, OUR lands. If you want talk about sustainability, natural gas by means of Fracking, Will ultimately destroy nearly all of our natural aquifers and underground water supplies by polluting them with poisonous chemicals. THIS IS A FACT, this is happening right now and can be proven unlike this theory of global warming. It is time to look at what is really happening instead of having our heads in the clouds worrying about what may happen, listening to scientists who have been caught fudging numbers in order to have research results agree with the theory... I live in Milwaukee Wisconsin, Milwaukee sits beside one of the greatest natural resources we have, a great lake, Milwaukee is now a hub for freshwater research. Now, why in the world would people be investing in fresh water research? The reason is not global warming, The reason is that water is going to become scarce and has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with our obsession with weather modification and our destruction of our natural water supplies due to hydraulic fracturing or Fracking. We already see large freighters from other countries filling football field sized bladders and towing the freshwater out of the country, this practice began after our President relinquished the great lakes to the United Nations. So, Canada is going to see their way past coal power, good for them. How about we make some smart decisions instead of the hip and trendy decisions.