New Anti-TMX Strategy: Remove Pipeline Insurance Coverage

First they said all the whales were going to die because of oil tankers, but then we looked at the marine traffic data and saw the increased tanker traffic was irrelevant compared to the total traffic (from ferries and other tankers and transports). 
 
Then they tried to tell us that Alberta oil was entirely uneconomic, that Asia didn’t want it, and oil companies would wind up with all these “stranded assets” because by golly any day now the world is going to stop using oil altogether. Of course, the idea of eco-radicals providing investment advice to protect oil producers from themselves is laughable.
 
Now they’re saying the TMX is just plain uninsurable, so the insurance companies would be making a bad financial decision to insure it. These people are idiots. The insurance industry is not going to abandon a Crown corp whale of a client for the sake of these morons’ and their ignorant opinions. 
— Read more at the Calgary Herald —
Advertisements

The Paris Climate Agreement Is Pointless and No One Cares

About two years ago, Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Plenty of fear-mongers told us the world would fall apart and really bad things would happen.

But here’s the simple truth about the Paris Climate Agreement:

The only way to get all of the governments of the world to sign on to Paris, was for them each to realize that they weren’t actually on the hook for anything.

The result was pledges such as Pakistan’s hilariously ambitious commitment,  which was “to reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” Yeah, after something peaks it typically goes down. Every country makes the same “pledge” automatically by virtue of definition of “peak”.

The Paris agreement was and is completely meaningless — nothing more than pompous, self-congratulatory theater so that the world’s elites can feel good about themselves when they go hang out to their fancy conferences.

Paris will have the same fate as Kyoto I and II.

Continue reading at the Institute for Energy Research

Elizabeth May’s National Energy Program

Green Party calls for Canada to stop using foreign oil — and rely on Alberta’s instead.

This is actually just the 21st century version of Trudeau Sr.’s “National Energy Plan.”

You may recall that one key objective of the NEP was “ultimate independence from the world market.”

There is nothing wrong with buying foreign oil per se.

The problem is that Ottawa’s bungled energy policy and interventions have created economic advantages for foreign oil and economic disadvantages for Canada’s oil. Canada would be a much more competitive producer than it is now but for Ottawa’s foolishness.

If you read the article and think about the totality of what the Green leader is proposing, it’s hard not to think “NEP.” She would block foreign oil imports and simultaneously cripple Alberta oil production. The only result would be major impoverishment.

More Hints of Trudeau Corruption

It’s been awhile since we’ve had anything new for you, so we’re delighted to provide this latest submission from our newest contributor, Scoot Newperson.

Corruption allegations have been following Trudeau for quite some time now, the most high-profile example being the SNC Lavalin affair. But that’s just the small stuff.

Shady Business at the Trudeau Foundation
Submitted by: Scoot Newperson

John McCall MacBain gave a gift for $928,000 over two years (428k in 2015, 500k in 2016) to the Trudeau Foundation. John McCall MacBain who just so happens to be the former Chair of the Board of Directors for the Trudeau Foundation.

Interestingly enough, when you do some searching for these details you find a stub on the Trudeau Foundation website which has seen been locked down/removed.(http://www.fondationtrudeau.ca/en/activities/news/largest-gift-foundations-history).

Google preview of the link says “Sep 9, 2016 – McCall MacBain Foundation makes largest gift in the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation’s history John H. McCall MacBain, Marcy McCall …” – there is no record of this URL on the Internet Archive but the link still is indexed on Google.

It could be the page was removed from the Trudeau Foundation page in response to the appearance of impropriety revealed in articles like this:

Money began to rain on Trudeau Foundation once Justin took over Liberals, analysis shows

The only other link I can find tying MacBain to Trudeau is from a new article dumping ground (http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=107740 ) which reference an article here — which has also since disappeared.

In addition to this oddity MacBain, who is a Canadian now living in Switzerland, also happens to be the Founding Chair of the European Climate Foundation.

In 2015, Trudeau announced in Paris that Canada was going to contribute 2.65 Billion over 5 years to ‘combat climate change’ , increasing Canadian contributions from 236 million in 2015 to 800 million in 2020.

300 million of Canada’s pledge goes directly to the “Green Climate Fund” . An article extoling the virtues of the “Green Climate Fund” can be found here (http://news.trust.org/item/20180719154640-yj9ih/) written by a man named Laurence Tubiana.

The same Laurence Tubiana named CEO of the European Climate Foundation in 2016 (https://europeanclimate.org/laurence-tubiana-appointed-as-ceo-of-the-european-climate-foundation/).

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out how this works.

Worried about Oil Spills?

It’s becoming less and less of a problem as the years go by.

tankers

Wind Power Is a Joke

Every now and then you should check out the Alberta Electric System Operator’s “Current Supply Demand Report” page.

This handy little page shows us the total net generation of power from different sources. It is constantly being updated.

Wind power sucks. It’s hellishly cold in Alberta right now and wind power contributes nothing to make our lives better. LITERALLY NOTHING. 

wind power sucks.JPG

You see that? Despite 1445 MW max capacity with wind power, and total net generation is zero. On one of the coldest days of the year.

Just look at all those wind farms and all the magical wind power generated!

lol-wind

Oh wait. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero.

You get the idea.

You can build all you want for capacity, but it doesn’t mean you get much actual electricity out of it.

Natural gas is reliable, cheap, clean, and plentiful. Wind power is unreliable, expensive, and requires back up from something you can count on (i.e. fossil fuel based energy that just works).

Wind power is a joke.

Anyone who thinks the government should tax perfectly good and reliable fossil fuel energy production & use to subsidize pathetically inefficient wind power is a fool or a knave.

Should We Subsidize CO2?

Alberta’s NDP government passed its carbon tax law today.

Many agree that it is one of the stupidest taxes ever created, however even many arguments against the tax accept the basic premise that CO2 is a negative externality and “something must be done.”

But what if the premise underlying the tax — not to mention any other “climate change” policy — is wrong?

What if the social cost of carbon is negative — i.e. the net effects of carbon are positive?

A new paper by Dayaratna, McKitrick, and Kreutzer finds reason to believe this is justified by the empirical data:

Substituting an empirical ECS distribution from LC15 yields a mean 2020 SCC of $19.52, a drop of 48%. The same exercise for the FUND model yields a mean SCC estimate of $19.33 based on RB07 and $3.33 based on the LC15 parameters—an 83% decline. Furthermore the probability of a negative SCC (implying CO2 emissions are a positive externality) jumps dramatically using an empirical ECS distribution. Using the FUND model, under the RB07 parameterization at a 3% discount rate there is only about a ten percent chance of a negative SCC through 2050, but using the LC15 distribution, the probability of a negative SCC jumps to about 40%. Remarkably, replacing simulated climate sensitivity values with an empirical distribution calls into question whether CO2 is even a negative externality. The lower SCC values also cluster more closely together across difference discount rates, diminishing the importance of this parameter.

This all makes perfect sense, because there are non-climate effects of CO2 and they are extremely beneficial to the planet (plant growth, crop yield, human well-being). Furthermore, the climate effects of CO2 observed in the real world are far less damaging than what’s been predicted by the models of climate change propagandists — and these too are largely beneficial. On this, see Goklany’s Carbon Dioxide: The Good Newsfrom GWPF.

So using the logic of carbon tax advocates, since carbon provides us with overall benefits, we should subsidize carbon rather than tax it extra.

CONCLUSION

From the standpoint of economics and ethics, we should neither subsidize carbon nor tax it.

If you have a carbon tax, get rid of it. If you don’t have one but think you need one, forget it.

Carbon taxes are an abomination — they do nothing to improve the environment and exist only to plunder citizens so that politicians, central planners and cronies can enrich themselves.

%d bloggers like this: