ESG appears to be the acronym for Economic Spurious Gibberish

The term “environmental social and governance” (ESG) appears to be a concept developed by Ivo Knoepfel of the University of Zurich via his paper “Who Cares Wins”. The paper led those who claim mankind is responsible for “climate change” to advocate the use of ESG terminology to further their “net-zero” by 2050 target! Interestingly, a recent referendum held in Switzerland related to the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 was rejected by Swiss voters so their politicians will have to back away from their signature to the “Paris Agreement”.

The hypocrisy of those recognized as the “super rich” or the “elites” of the world pushing the “net-zero” emissions by 2050 and the need to audit ESG commitment(s) by all corporations is mind-blowing!

The foregoing was recently highlighted by the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock and one of Canada’s largest, namely Brookfield

An article in the FP highlighted their hypocrisy, with the headline: “Brookfield, BlackRock bids for Saudi Aramco pipeline underscore an ESG dilemma”. Both of these institutions have pushed the “climate change” agenda and the focus to reach net-zero, so one wonders; why are they competitively bidding to acquire a gas pipeline and how would it allow them to achieve their purported end goal?

To reiterate the latter point it is noteworthy to be aware that Larry Fink, founder of BlackRock in his annual letter to CEO’s in 2021 stated:  “we believe all companies – including BlackRock – must begin to address the transition to net zero today. We are taking a number of steps to help investors prepare their portfolios for a net zero world, including capturing opportunities created by the net zero transition.

Likewise if one looks at the claim made by Mark Carney (Vice Chair of Brookfield), after his appointment, he went on to say publicly: “The reason we’re net zero is that we have this enormous renewables business,” he said, and thus “all the avoided emissions that come with that offset existing investments in entities that emit carbon.“  The media pushback on his remark forced him to admit it was a false claim.

Both Larry Fink and Mark Carney are members of the Board of Trustees of the WEF (World Economic Forum) and Klaus Schaub, WEF’s founder, states you won’t be allowed to join the WEF unless the company or organization you represent have committed to achieve net-zero by 2050 or sooner!

Past and Present Brookfield Actions

Brookfield’s history goes back to 1899 but we will look at only a few of their activities in the past decade. Let’s start with their purchase in October 2012 of Enwave Energy for C$480 million owned jointly by the City of Toronto and OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) at that time.  Enwave was, and still is, a district energy system provider, meaning they don’t generate greenhouse gases as the energy is geothermal (includes lake water) to heat and cool buildings.

Fast forward by almost 9 years to February 2021 and Brookfield announced they sold Enwave for US$4.1 billion (C$5.1 billion) to Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and Australian firm IFM Investors (each owning 50%) and presumably celebrated a very nice return on their original investment.  What is sadly amusing about this buying and selling occurrence is that one Government of Ontario pension plan (OMERS) sold their position back in 2012 for a fraction of what another Government of Ontario pension plan (OTPP) purchased it for in 2021. 

To make taxpayers more upset, back in 2019 former Minister of the Environment, Catherine McKenna handed Enwave $10 million of our tax dollars saying this partnership will help create jobs and help tackle climate change in asmarter way.“   

Just days ago, the (CIB) Canada Infrastructure Bank, (created in June 2017 to provide up to $35 billion to support infrastructure projects) issued a press release stating:  “The CIB is committing $600 million to the project which allows Enwave to accelerate and scale the build-out of its district energy systems.” The press release is vague in that it doesn’t indicate if it is an investment or a loan agreement. Either event will simply see tax dollars flying out the door while the Government increases our deficit and borrows the money they claim is for the good of the planet. The CIB now falls under the purview of Minister Dominic LeBlanc who in the past was singled out by Canada’s ethics commissioner when he “broke conflict of interest rules when he awarded a lucrative Arctic surf clam license to a company linked to his wife’s cousin.“

So, one should wonder, what did Brookfield do with that US$4.1 billion to assist them in their push to get to net-zero their Vice Chair Mark Carney, surely emphasized?  We don’t really know, but:

Brookfield wound up competing with Pembina Pipeline Co. for the purchase of Inter Pipeline and they won with a hostile takeover offer by outbidding Pembina with an accepted offer of C$8.6 billion.  One should surely wonder how that will assist Brookfield in getting to the “net-zero” target and how it fits with their 63 page ESG report for 2020?

The CEO’s letter within Brookfield’s ESG report contained the following:

Within our ESG initiatives, we are directing our efforts to the transition to a net zero carbon economy. This transition will affect virtually every business in every country, and we are fully committed to doing our part to decarbonize. In March 2021, we took an important step as part of our commitment to achieving net zero throughout our business: becoming a signatory to the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative.”

One should wonder with the foregoing ESG initiative why would Brookfield purchase a pipeline and pursue another one in the middle east in competition with BlackRock (another NZAM member)?

From all appearances ESG, ie: “Economic Spurious Gibberish“ is the acronym for the heading in this article and has nothing to do with “environmental social and governance” they pretend it does!

Quebec has joined the BOGA(man), Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance

When first viewed, the word “BOGA” created mind thoughts of things like, boogieman, bafflegab, the Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy, etc. etc.  Looking further clarified it as the acronym for a COP 26 creation known as “Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance”!

The article where “BOGA” appeared was dated November 11, 2021 and headlined as; “COP26: Denmark and Costa Rica launch ambitious alliance to phase out oil and gas”. The article went on to state: “Led by Costa Rica and Denmark, the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) saw six full members, France, Greenland, Ireland, Quebec, Sweden and Wales, announced at COP26 today“ and further stated; ‘Each member will commit to ending new licensing rounds for oil and gas exploration and production. They must also set an end date for oil and gas production and exploration that is aligned with Paris Agreement objectives.“  Reading further it disclosed California and New Zealand also joined the alliance as associate members and Italy became a ‘Friend of BOGA’.

Looking at the two founding countries of BOGA is interesting:

Costa Rica generates 72% of its electricity from hydro, almost 15% from geothermal sources, 12% from wind and a small amount from biomass and solar.  Costa Rica consumes just under 10 TWh (terawatt hours) of electricity annually. (NB: For context, Toronto Hydro delivered almost 24 TWh in 2020)

Denmark’s electricity consumption in 2019 was 33.7 TWh.  Generation from fossil fuels and waste was 20% (7.4 TWh), wind was 57% (19.2 TWh), solar 3% (1 TWh) and the balance came from net imports. Up until very recently Denmark held the # 1 spot as the EU country with the highest electricity rates but they recently were relegated to 2nd place by Germany.

The other issue with Denmark is related to their purpose in creating BOGA! They are home to the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, the fourth largest employer in Demark with 29,000 employees. Denmark is also home to the world’s top developer of offshore wind farms, Orsted. It seems obvious why Denmark played the major role in creating BOGA as those two companies will reap the benefits going forward and the Government will reap the rewards from any jobs created as Denmark also has the highest personal tax rates in the EU.

As if to exacerbate the BOGA affect, Denmark’s Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities Dan Jorgensen, in early September announced they were looking for partners in respect to their plan to construct a $34 billion manmade “energy island” and hundreds of “offshore industrial wind turbines” to help the country achieve “climate neutrality by 2050.”  Missing from the equation and braggadocio of Denmark’s Jorgensen, was how those “hundreds of offshore industrial wind turbines”; kill birds and bats, affect marine life or how they will be recycled when they reach their end-of-life.   As demonstrated by countries around the world many parts of those IWT along with solar panels will simply be buried as has continually happened with those fiberglass turbine blades.

Costa Rica, the other co-founder of BOGA, as noted above, appears to generate 100% of its electricity from renewable sources and one can easily find articles supporting that fact.  Funnily enough, despite those commendations about renewable electricity for Costa Rica their main import is “refined petroleum” which in 2019 was $1.52 billion.  An article in the Guardian from 2017 headlined: “All that glitters is not green: Costa Rica’s renewables conceal dependence on oil” went into considerable detail including the fact “renewables make up less than a quarter of the nation’s total energy use.”  The article went on to note an “explosive growth in private vehicles is causing more than just pollution. Traffic in the capital, San José, has become almost unmanageable, with the city earning the worst ranking for congestion in Latin America, according to a study by the navigation app Waze.”

The foregoing suggests things are not as they appear despite the “back slapping” at COP26 associated with powering the electricity sector with industrial wind turbines, solar or hydro. Those few locations around the world fortunate enough to have been graced with an abundance of hydro power by mother nature like Costa Rica and the province of Quebec should not be critics of those less fortunate.

Apparently, it is perfectly acceptable to claim you are going all out to push the “renewable energy” button while you import oil to refine it, as Quebec does, or import it in a refined state as Costa Rica does, or in the case of Denmark, extract it for sale to others.

The obvious hypocrisy of the whole UN COP 26 climate conference is easily exposed from just this small segment of what those 30,000 Glasgow attendees developed over the two-week event.

Dialing the temperature up or down is beyond the control of humankind except to a very small extent as many scientists (not invited to attend COP 26) have stressed in various peer reviewed studies over many years. 

We should all be afraid of the UNIPCC “BOGA man”!

Parker Gallant on hazards of wind turbines and Greta’s rally

I was on the Marc Patrone show yesterday (November 8, 2021) to chat about the captioned and you can listen to our conversation beginning at 1:09:50 of the podcast on SAUGA Radio 960 AM here:

OR

If you subscribe to NEWSTALK CANADA.com you can watch our chat here:

https://www.newstalkcanada.com/?page_id=22

Catching my Eye—Tragedies related to Climate Change

It is becoming evident the “climate change” push to achieve “net-zero” is causing lots of problems around the world but they appear to have nothing to do with an increase in floods, heat deaths, hurricanes, wildfires, harm to reefs, melting Antarctic or Arctic ice! 

The “sky is falling” referenced by politicians, bureaucrats and eco-warriors at COP 26 claiming it’s caused by emissions, instead, appears to be caused by their push to reach that “net-zero” emissions target!

Some recent examples:

Because electric buses catch fire easily, many German cities are taking the expensive electric buses out of service.

A recent article stated: “Lower Saxony is right at the forefront when it comes to electric bus transport. In June, however, a major fire broke out in a bus depot in Hanover in the Mittelfeld district, in which the fire destroyed nine vehicles belonging to the Üstra transport company. Cause: The battery of an electric bus had caught fire.“  In Stuttgart another electric bus fire noted 25 vehicles were destroyed by fire.

One should assume those transit* bus fires would result in major insurance claims but those insurance companies, if members of Mark Carney’s GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero) creation, with their $130 trillion in assets, will blame the event on “climate change”!

Maine voters reject $10 billion Hydro-Quebec deal; Legault says project will go ahead                                       

Hydro-Quebec got hit with a shock when a referendum in Maine rejected completion of a major transmission line passing through the state to reach Massachusetts. Hydro-Quebec signed a long-term supply agreement with Massachusetts to supply “clean hydro electric power” to replace some coal fired generation.  Those eco-warriors in Maine pushing to stop the transmission line argued; “environmentalists say that hydropower isn’t as low-carbon as it seems, between the building of dams and the decomposition of vegetation underwater in flooded areas, which creates some greenhouse gases. They’d prefer a turn to other clean energy sources, like wind.“  Premier Legault who was attending COP 26 said “Nothing is certain in life, but I am confident it will happen“. 

Sometimes it’s comforting to see politicians who have firmly committed to “net-zero” as Premier Legault has, get beaten up by those same eco-warriors they were intent on winning over for their votes!

Volvo says emissions from making EVs can be 70% higher than petrol models – and claims it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become greener

It is interesting to note Volvo, back in March 2021, committed to being fully electric by 2030 recently stated: “greenhouse gas emissions during production of the electric vehicle are nearly 70 per cent higher than a petrol model, which is mainly due to the carbon intensity of battery and steel production, as well as from the increased share of aluminium in the plug-in car.“  This article went on to say; “at current global electricity mix, it needs to be driven almost 70k miles – 9 years based on average UK mileage – to offset its higher production emissions“  Volvo goes on to suggest if the batteries are charged** with “green energy” the emission offset will occur at 30k miles. Most EV manufacturers are now required to warranty battery life for 5 to 8 years meaning at some point shortly after, those batteries will reach their “end of life”, with a replacement cost of USD $5K to $15K each. 

What Volvo don’t say is about recycling those batteries. Dr. Paul Anderson of the University of Birmingham when queried about the percentage of recycled lithium-ion batteries stated: “the value everyone quotes is about 5%,” says Dr Anderson. “In some parts of the world it’s considerably less.“ Lots of taxpayer dollars are being expended to try and find a way to increasing that miserly 5% but because of the toxic nature of many of the hazardous materials they “have an inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly.”

From all appearances it seems the move to “green” the economies of the world through “electrification” of everything is not what the eco-warriors and the politicians they have converted to their beliefs, will find to be an easy task.

Perhaps those politicians know but don’t care as they will not be in power when the proverbial s##t hits the fan! 

*Those fires should alert some Ontario municipalities like Ottawa and Toronto, as well as the Province of Quebec to future problems should they electrify their transit and school bus fleets as planned; but don’t count on it!

**Cold climates affect EV batteries negatively causing them to be recharged more frequently.

Sad News from Denmark about Industrial Wind Turbines

The “sad news” for the shareholders of two Danish companies will undoubtedly be “happy news” for those around the world who have experienced the nasty effects created by industrial wind turbines (IWT). Those nasty effects of IWT are significant and ignored by eco-warriors and politicians who are “climate change” advocates and believe IWT are one of the ways to achieve “net-zero” emissions.

Examples of those nasty effects are far and wide and include:

1.The health effects of the audible and inaudible noise of those swishing blades as well as shadow flicker have been noted in hundreds of studies which show conclusively a good percentage of the population are affected in a negative way.

2.The slaughter of birds and bats including the possible effect on some “at risk species” has been studied globally and IWT have been labelled as a major cause of those deaths and the resulting harm to nature.

3.Offshore wind farms have been found in various studies to have a damaging effect on commercial fishing and certain species as well as disorienting whales due to infrasound noises.

4.The detrimental effect on property values where IWT are located within sight of residential homes which leads to reduced “taxable” values in the municipalities where they are located.

5.The added cost to ensure power availability to back-up IWT due to their intermittent and unreliable nature requiring 90% support from coal or natural gas generation to prevent grid blackouts.

6.The added cost per number “5” above drove up the cost of electricity in Ontario to the degree that electricity rates more than doubled and many households were driven into “energy poverty” requiring huge support from taxpayers as well as ratepayers.

The Danish companies highlighted in the recent Financial Times article were: “Vestas and Orsted” and they were warning about, tough times for renewable energy”.  The basic message was, revenues and profits were failing to meet forecasts.  The result was share values dropped.  So sad!

Orsted, “the world’s largest offshore wind farm developer, said it had taken a DKr2.5bn ($389m) hit from lower wind speeds in the first nine months of this year compared with 2020”. Vestas “cut its full-year profit margin guidance before special items to 4 per cent, having trimmed it to 5-7 per cent in August from an initial 6-8 per cent. The turbine maker blamed a range of factors including global supply chain blockages and shortages of components, along with higher raw material and transport costs.”

The article goes on to highlight the “intermittency” of wind generation and laid the blame on; “the slowest wind speeds in decades have exacerbated a reliance on gas and coal for electricity—including in the UK, the world’s biggest offshore wind market.” The foregoing remark should remind one that E.ON, one of the UK’s energy providers back in 2008 stated the 15% UK target for renewable energy by 2020 “would require up to 90% of this amount as backup from coal and gas plants to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies were not available.”

It seems ludicrous politicians, spurred on by eco-warriors, have bought into the dubious claim, mankind is fully responsible for “climate change”. They ignore what many scientists state is principally caused by solar activity as it has in the past.  Mankind’s contribution to emissions is not the control knob they so firmly believe may be causing global warming in their efforts to reach “net-zero”!

Wind really Wimps-out in Hour 18 in Ontario and pretty well the whole day

Yesterday (November 4, 2021) for hour 18 industrial wind generation (IWT) in Ontario supplied 153 MWh out of total demand (approximately), including net exports (1,547 MW) that averaged about 18,750 MW during that hour.  The 153 MWh generated by those IWT represented a miserly 0.82% of total demand at that hour despite their capacity level of 4,310 MW or about 15% of total available capacity at that hour.

For the full 24 hours IWT peak generation occurred at hour 2 when they managed to achieve 336 MWh of generation or 2.2% of total (approximately) demand. IWT have a perennial habit of generating power when it’s not needed, like the middle of the night!

Ontario’s ratepayers should be thankful we have baseload power available from our nuclear and hydro capacity coupled with the 8,378 MW of flexible gas generation.  For the hour ending at 6 PM our flexible gas generated provided 4,388 MWh as many of us were perhaps cooking our supper!

Based on what happens far too frequently with grids with a high dependency on wind and solar such as California, Texas and Southern Australia they are often not generating power when its needed and causes rolling brownouts or blackouts.

A recent example of IWT on-shore and off-shore fallibilities occurred in the UK during the COP 26 Conference in Glasgow when the UK’s abundant IWT failed miserably and in order to keep the lights on they had to fire up some coal plants to meet critical demand.

Intermittent and unreliable IWT and solar are not the answer to either replacing fossil fuel generation nor bringing developing countries reliable energy generation to get them out of poverty!  

Marc Patrone, 960 AM Radio Chat about COP 26, Old Growth Forest, etc.

Marc kindly had me on his show today (November 4, 2021) and we covered a fair amount of ground including what is going on at COP 26, how the UK fired up coal plants to keep the lights on as well as other issues such as lumber prices rising, etc.

You can listen to our chat on the radio podcast here starting at 01:21:35

OR

If a subscriber to NEWSTALK CANADA you can watch and listen to our chat here:

https://www.newstalkcanada.com/?page_id=22

Quebec, Trudeau’s poster child, trying to reach net-zero by going full blast on EV

The province of Quebec is blessed with natural resources in the form of rivers and lakes that Hydro Quebec has damned to generate what is labelled as clean electricity.  As a result of their resource benefits, their 2020 annual report notes their residential rate of 7.3 cents/kWh (kilowatt hour) are the “lowest in North America”!  The report also states $3.6 billion was a “Contribution to the Quebec government’s revenue in 2020”.

Attempting to find the average rates for Ontario is almost impossible and depends on your LDC (local distribution company) and their charges for distribution, regulation etc. on top of the cost of generation.  As one example Hydro One have several residential rate categories combined with TOU (time of use) metrics varying from a low of 13 cents/kWh to over 20 cents/kWh with the average in the range of 17 cents/kWh.  Those costs naturally have an effect on per capita usage so for the 2020-year Ontarians consumed 139.5 terawatts (TW)* whereas Quebecers consumed 171.4 TW*.  On a per capita basis Quebecers consumed just over 20 MW annually whereas it was less than half that in Ontario at about 9.5 MW. 

Back in November 2020 Premier Legault announced a $6.7 billion five year plan to cut emissions. The main focus seemed to be aimed at banning all gas car sales in 2035 and electrification of 1.5 million vehicles, by 2030, including city buses (55%), taxis (40%) and school buses (65%)!

Those various EV will need those large batteries to power them and that means they will weigh more. As expected, the Ford Lightning weights 1,600 pounds more than an ICE powered Ford 150.  That will presumably have more of an impact on the deterioration of asphalt meaning more frequent road repairs but where is that money going to come from?  A large part of our gas taxes currently are slated for keeping our road and highways in reasonable shape but (to the best of my knowledge) those road repair taxes don’t apply to EV! The other issue is recycling those batteries as they “contain hazardous materials, and have an inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly” and “Currently, globally, it’s very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%,” says Dr Anderson. “In some parts of the world it’s considerably less.”

As if to amplify the issues with those batteries they are much less effective in cold weather so will require more frequent charging during Quebec’s cold winters which is when their “peak demand” occurs so will Hydro Quebec need to restrict electricity use further?  They already offer customers a “dynamic pricing” break for lowering consumption during 7 hours on a winter day.  The number of EV registered in Quebec as of March 31, 2021 were 85,486 or 1.5% of over 5.8 million road vehicles (2019 stats) so if that increases to Premier Legault’s target of 1.5 million on the road by 2030 we should suspect Quebec will be severely restricting consumption and by then trying to figure out how to recycle the batteries.

It turns out some of those batteries will be manufactured in Quebec as PM Trudeau and Premier Legault in March 2021 got together and announced they would lend Lion Electric Co., a Montreal based manufacturer of electric trucks and buses $50 million each to establish a $185 million lithium-ion battery assembly plant in Quebec. Certain conditions would allow $30 million of that $100 million to be forgivable. Quebec’s Economy Minister, Pierre Fitzgibbon, stated “If we play our cards right, we could become world leaders in this market of the future,”

A Financial Post article about Lion Electric said; “The company went public this past May and has Power Corp as a major investor owning 36 per cent of Lion.” Just another epitome of the “Laurentian Elite”.

If one moves along to a week ago the news broke further about Lion Electric and how they received an order (conditional) for 1,000 electric school buses.  Needless to say, that was big news and was carried extensively in various big and small media outlets. Reviewing several of them you find Lion is expanding south as an article in the Cantech site said; “Lion said the construction of a shell building at its Joliet, Illinois, manufacturing facility was 80 per cent complete and was expected to begin production during the second half of 2022.”  One wonders will that site be supplying those “school buses”?

An article in Global News starts off with: “The Lion Electric Co. says it has received a conditional order for 1,000 electric school buses from Student Transportation of Canada, whose parent company is controlled by Quebec’s pension fund manager.” Hmm, all in the family!

So, it appears the “sainthood” sought by Legault and Trudeau by their attendance at COP 26 is being financed by the taxpayers of not only Quebec and the Federal Liberal government but also by the Alberta taxpayers. The latter provided the bulk of the equalization payments resulting in Quebec receiving $13.2 billion of the $22 billion Alberta coughed up in 2019 alone.

The Laurentian Elites love it but we should guess Albertans will hope all those 1.5 million EV charging their “made in Quebec” batteries will cause blackouts!

*Net of imports and exports.

Maybe Alberta’s Premier should hold off asking for Constitutional Changes to the Equalization Formula

The past week was an interesting one here in Canada as a couple of major provincial announcements from the east (Quebec) and west (Alberta) suggest what appears to be a major conflict on energy sources and the flow of tax dollars related to the “Equalization Formula”.

On the latter; in 2019 Alberta contributed $22 billion more in tax revenue than they got back from the Federal government according to a Fraser Institute review whereas Quebec in that year, received $13.2 billion or 66.9% of total equalization payments.

Those equalization payments have seemingly annoyed Albertans as clearly demonstrated via a recent referendum resulting in almost 62% voting to revise the “constitution”. The principal reason expressed by Alberta Premier Kenney why Albertans supported the referendum was; “to demand a repeal of “discriminatory” environmental laws that hurt Alberta’s energy sector.”  Needless to say, the push to eliminate fossil fuel generation has impacted the Alberta economy and forecasted to do more harm.

While many of those “environmental laws” were imposed by the Trudeau led Liberal minority government another recent “related event” presumably played a role!  That event was how Quebec Premier Legault suddenly announced: “The government of Quebec has taken a decision to renounce, definitively, extraction of hydrocarbons in its territory,” and labelled it as “a recipe for prosperity in an emerging age of international consensus on preventing drastic climate change by cutting fossil fuel carbon emissions blamed for global warming.” Needless to say Premier Legault will attend COP-26 where he presumably hopes to be honoured for Quebec being blessed with hydro dams. Legault noted those dams “enable us to attract investment because, in future, enterprises that want to produce goods without emitting greenhouse gases are going to find in Quebec an incomparable land of opportunity”.

As is to solidify Premier Legault’s anticipated blessing at COP 26 it is interesting to note Quebec accounts for 46% of all EV (electric vehicles) registrations in Canada perhaps related to their generous grants and cheap electricity rates. 

It seems ironic Albertans contribute their tax dollars to allow Quebecers to receive an $8K grant from Quebec (coupled with one for $5K from the Feds) to purchase a Tesla EV!

Does Premier Legault see lithium demand fueling Quebec prosperity?

The foregoing question is one that could be weighing on Premier Legault’s mind and why he dismissed exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) in Quebec even though they may well have untapped and significant resources particularly related to natural gas.  As it turns out Quebec also has lithium reserves which are currently in high demand and recently forecast to reach as much as US$30,000 per metric ton in the spot market. Couple those lithium reserves with another forecast suggesting its demand will grow at average annual rates of 30%* and one can see why Premier Legault is excited about the net-zero push.

As it to top things off back in late March of this year the US Department of Commerce “held a closed-door virtual meeting with miners and battery manufacturers to discuss ways to boost Canadian production of EV materials, according to documents seen by Reuters.”  The article describing the meeting noted a month before; President Biden and PM Trudeau committed to building an EV supply chain between the two countries. Interestingly two US mining companies (Livent and Pallinghurst) have invested in Canada jointly purchasing “the Nemaska lithium project in Quebec, in what will be North America’s largest lithium mine.” Livent was one of the 30 or so companies present at the ”closed-door” virtual meeting as was Tesla.  Another interesting article from July 2020 noted a California based company; KoBold Metals, “financed by well-known billionaires including Jeff Bezos, Ray Dalio, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson and Gates” has been attracted to Quebec.  KoBold’s principal focus is on finding “cobalt” and nickel deposits (secondary) both used in the manufacturing of those EV batteries.  They have acquired “rights to an area (in Quebec) of about 1,000 square kilometres (386 sq. miles), where it plans to begin collecting geophysical data before the end of the year.” It should be apparent why many of the “billionaires” behind KoBold push the “net-zero” concept. It is to simply make themselves even richer at a huge cost to the rest of us commoners. 

From all appearances Premier Legault sees the push for net-zero and elimination of fossil fuel use as a gamechanger for Quebec by attracting investors seeking minerals for EV.  Those incoming investments will (he believes) create well-paying jobs and rocket Quebec’s economy up to surpass Alberta’s on a per capita basis. His wish perhaps, is to see Quebec vault to become Canada’s richest province.  Should that happen because of the demise of fossil fuels Quebec may find itself as “The Province” doling out those “equalization” monies.

Maybe Premier Kenny should hold off before insisting on revisions to the equalization formula, as in the future, when the world has achieved the goal of the eco-warriors and our demented politicians, Quebec will be rife with cash and the rest of Canada will be the beneficiaries. 

We will all surely need it, should the foregoing happen, as we will be struggling to survive without reliable power to keep us warm in our cold winters and many of us will, by then, be living in poverty.

*BYD a major Chinese battery manufacturing company recently announced they will raise battery prices by 20% due to raw material costs.

The Canadian Institute of Climate Choices want us to Sink not Swim

Surely it was purely coincidental the CICC (Canadian Institute of Climate Choices) released their report titled: “Global climate policy acceleration means sink-or-swim decade for Canada’s economy” on the same, pre-announced day, Commissioner Steve Allan’s Alberta Inquiry into anti-Alberta energy campaigns was released!  Or was it?

Both of the foregoing reports were released on October 21, 2021 and while the Allan report was about 700 pages the CICC report was a meagre 122 pages.  The latter however, was full of disaster warnings about “climate change” and suggested “fossil fuels” were being replaced with wind and solar.  The CICC report went so far as to compliment China (the world’s largest emitter of CO 2) for being “an early leader in electric vehicles and solar technology”. The Allan Report (657 pages) was oblique in accusing Canadian environmental groups of using foreign funding to curtail and end fossil fuel generation. The foregoing  was concluded despite an independent report from Deloitte’s noting; “Total foreign funding, therefore, of “Canadian-based environmental initiatives” was $1.28 billion for the period 2003-2019.”  Apparently “climate change” activism is not a sin or a crime despite its probable outcome to create energy poverty.

Looking specifically at the CICC, “sink or swim” report one should note it is truly meant to scare the reader by suggesting if Canada doesn’t move to “net-zero” emissions we are in big trouble.  Specifically, their report states: “Around 2,000 workers have been affected by coal power closures, whereas over 880,000 people work in the transition-vulnerable sectors identified in Figure 18.” Figure 18 (page 59), discloses those workers who are reputedly at risk of losing their employment are in a variety of jobs including those in many of the areas at which Canada excels such as: oil and gas extraction, emissions intensive manufacturing, mining and quarrying, transportation equipment manufacturing and support for mining and oil and gas extraction! Needless to say, the forecast of those 880,000 job losses caught the media’s attention.

The CICC report in “picture terms” lays out the potential impacts in a chart (Figure 1) on page 6 by using a forecast from Central Bankslabelled as,“NGFS” (Network for Greening the Financial System).  The NGFS was launched by 8 founding central banks, under the leadership of Banque de France‘s governor François Villeroy de Galhau, the Dutch Central Bank‘s Frank Elderson and the Bank of England‘s former governor Mark Carney.” It should come as no surprise Mark Carney was actively involved in its formation. Their membership now contains 95 central banks The data, needless to say, is scary as without adoption of “net-zero” by 2050, in non-adapting countries, GDP is projected to fall by over 10% from current levels. CICC commissioned Planetrics (a Mckinsey & Company subsidiary), an international climate-risk analytics company, to stress test Canadian publicly traded companies and companies with Canadian operations. Apparently CICC with close to 100 reputed taxpayer supported “experts” was unable to perform that exercise.

At this point it is important to note the CICC was a creation of the now retired Catherine McKenna, former Federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. The CICC was created with $20 million taxpayer dollars and loaded its staff, Board of Directors, expert panels and advisory council with a myriad of eco-warriors mainly dependent on government largesse. Those eco-warriors seem intent on decimating Canada’s economic wellbeing via their actions in support of our current government and ending our dependence on fossil fuels.

Needless to say, we should believe the release of the CICC report to coincide with the Allan report was meant to offset its release.  The damning information in the Allan report only confirmed how Canadian environmental groups accepted foreign contributions to push the narrative—Canadian production of coal, oil and gas must cease!  One need look no further, then note, the current President of CICC is Rick Smith who spent 9 years at Environmental Defence pushing the “climate change” agenda. Failing that belief, perhaps the word came down from Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change or his Chief of Staff, Marlo Raynolds whose past relationship with Rick Smith demonstrates serious collaboration between Pembina and Environmental Defence via the Strathmere Group.  

Both Raynolds and Smith signed the Strathmere Goup’s “Declarations” jointly and one of those clearly was:

Declare a moratorium on expansion of tar sands development and halt further approval of infrastructure that would lock us into using dirty liquid fuels from sources such as tar sands, oil shale and liquid coal.”

We should be confident the release of the CICC’s “sink or swim” report on the same day as the Steven Allan Inquiry was planned to ensure the main stream media focused on the forecasted loss of those 880,000 jobs that will occur should Canada not commit to “net-zero”!

Collaboration between CICC and those in political power clearly reflects their intentions to harm Canada’s economy!