Marc Patrone podcast: COP26 attendees, PM Trudeau’s commitments, oil sands emissions, etc.

I was on the Marc Patrone show on SAUGA 960 AM today (November 23, 2021) starting at 1:26:35 of the podcast. We covered a lot of ground about COP26 and what the approximately 39,000 attendees accomplished (sarcasm intended) and a wide degree of other related topics including emissions, inflation, etc. You can listen to our conversation starting at 1:26:35 of the Marc Patrone podcast here:

Canada’s Emissions per billions of dollars of GDP and Per Person have fallen (except for Prime Minister Trudeau and his sheeple)

As the UN COP26 Conference got rolling on November 1, 2021 politicians took the stage to make their announcements about what their country would do to save the world from global disintegration caused by that dreaded “climate change”.  Canada’s Prime Minister stepped up and the highlights of his presentation were embodied in the announcement on the PM’s website which contained the following:

The Prime Minister today announced that Canada is the first major oil-producing country moving to capping and reducing pollution from the oil and gas sector to net zero by 2050. To help do this at a pace and scale needed to achieve the shared goal of net zero by 2050, the government will set 5-year targets, and will also ensure that the sector makes a meaningful contribution to meeting Canada’s 2030 climate goals. In a letter sent today from Ministers Guilbeault and Wilkinson, the government is seeking the advice of the Net-Zero Advisory Body on how best to move forward on this approach.

Trudeau’s pronouncement at COP26 was old news though as back on November 19, 2020 in Ottawa he stepped outside to announce the 2050 net-zero target while his then Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MECC), Jonathon Wilkinson, tabled the legislation in the House of Commons.  In February 2021 Wilkinson announced the “Net-Zero Advisory Body ”. Needless to say, it is impossible to find any of those named to NZAB with a dissenting opinion to either the PM or his prior or current MECC Ministers and their overall belief in mankind’s ability to control the climate!

It is worth mentioning the current MECC Minister, Steven Guilbeault, took 29 of his current ministerial staff to COP26, suggesting he was deathly afraid of being questioned about something (related to “climate change”) out of his depth of knowledge.  It also seems strange Ministry staff are not capable of telling the Minister and his boss, Justin Trudeau, how to achieve those “net-zero” targets! Were their “skill sets” not a requirement of employment in the MECC?

Falling emissions

Finding Canada’s emission statistics is not difficult and a report from the Canadian Energy Centre from July 26, 2021 has data defining how Canada’s emissions compare to the rest of the world and how we have done since the year 2000.

Their report shows Canada’s emissions per unit of GDP have fallen by 30 per cent since 2000 and notes:Between 2000 and 2019, GHG emissions in Canada fell from 0.5 MT of CO2e per billion dollars of GDP to 0.35 MT, a decline of 30 per cent”.  The report references Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) as the data source. 

The CEC report also states Canada’s emission intensity per person has also fallen since 2000. It notes: “Between 2000 and 2019, GHG emissions in Canada fell from 23.9 tonnes of CO2e per person to 19.4 tonnes, a decline of 19 per cent”.  The report again references ECCC as the data source.

If one ventures to the ECCC website it is easy to confirm the CEC’s claims and at the same time find other interesting information on the source of emissions. The ECCC report dated April 2021 also has the following chart that clearly shows what the CEC reported but The ECCC has emissions data going back two decades; 1990 to 2019.

The ECCC report states: “Between 1990 and 2019, crude oil production more than doubled in Canada. This was mostly driven by a rapid increase in production from the oil sands, which are more GHG-intensive than conventional sources

Specifically, the ECCC report says; “Between 1990 and 2019, GHG emissions from conventional oil production have increased by 20%, while emissions from oil sands production have increased by 468%.”

What the ECCC report doesn’t tell you however is oil sands bitumen production from 1990 to 2019 increased from 123K barrels per day to 1,549K barrels per day or 1,159%! Obviously, oil sands producers have done an impressive job of curbing emissions.

By avoiding the foregoing major fact, the ECCC report intentionally obscures the contribution to the Canadian economy by the oil sands.  It appears the intent may be to negatively influence media reports from the CBC and others who receive taxpayer support!

Minister Steven Guilbeault should take the 29 staff members of his Ministry we taxpayers paid for to travel to Glasgow and start planting some of those two billion trees Trudeau once again promised to do at COP26 much as he did when he met with Greta Thunberg back in September 2019!

Let’s see the Trudeau government set “targets” to plant those trees to “ensure that the” Minister of the Environment and Climate Change “makes a meaningful contribution to meeting Canada’s 2030 climate goals”!

Wow, Quite the Party at Glasgow with 39,509 registered for COP 26

Recently, a friend and ardent advocate for the truth about “climate change” sent me the link to the Provisional list of registered participants (PLOP) to the COP26 festivities just ended in Glasgow. While most of the Provincial Governments sent participants to COP26, Quebec stands out with over 20 attendees whereas Ontario sent only 4. The provincial number of attendees however pales compared to those attending from the Federal Liberal government which includes Trudeau’s Lead Speechwriter as well as his Official Photographer! 

It is worth noting from the below chart (posted on the 1616 page PDF file of attendees at COP26) the number of (NGO) “Non-governmental organizations” (1,823) who attended the conference with 14,033 participants. Many of those NGO are “charities”.   Now, try to imagine the millions of dollars they spent and why this should be considered a charitable activity?

One assumes the “charitable attendees” were not included in media reports stating: “Canada sent 277 delegates and 17 press aides along for the ride. That’s a lot of emissions – and a lot of taxpayer dollars“.  Despite the foregoing, in a search of PLOP many Canadian registered eco-warrior charities did send lots of delegates. The PLOP listing attendees frequently fails to indicate the country associated with individual names but in doing the “ctrl/f” search a number of Canadian charities, etc. are identifiable! 

To wit:

Those eco-charities with a few identifiable attendees from Canada included: Environmental Defence, WWF, Sierra Club, David Suzuki Foundation and a new charity established by none other than Bruce Lourie, called; “The Transition Accelerator” (TA) where he is Chairman of the Board! The TA’s aim is, “to support Canada’s transition to a net zero future while solving societal challenges“.  Based on their CRA financial filings they have not had to issue a “tax receipt” since their formation as their revenue ($867K) came from other “registered charities” such as the “Ivey Foundation” where Lourie sits as President.

The Ivey Foundation has also handed out grants to Environmental Defence where he spent time as Board Chair and built his relationship with Rick Smith when they coauthored a book. Smith was also an attendee at COP26 but more on him below! 

Another attendee of COP26 was IISD (International Institute of Sustainable Development), a Winnipeg based charity which also received funding from the Ivey Foundation.  The big money for IISD however comes from the UN, the Canadian Federal government and some from the provinces or province of Manitoba.  Total tax receipted funds were a miserly $53,617. (0.2% of gross revenue or enough to cover about 20% of their highest paid employee’s income) out of total revenue of $25.6 million based on their most recent filing with the CRA. IISD appear to have sent at least 12 people to COP26 and will, presumably, claim all their expenses as a “charitable activity”!

The other Canadian entity I was able to identify is a “not-for-profit” named Climate Action Network (CAN-Rac)* who sent at least 30 individuals to COP26. CAN-Rac are a coalition of over 100 organizations which includes Environmental Defence, Sierra Club and the David Suzuki Foundation.  CAN-Rac has been known to spin untruths as pointed out in an article yours truly penned over a year ago.

Now, let’s return to Rick Smith who was an attendee of COP26 as head honcho of the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC), along with one other CICC officer.  CICC is the institution created by Catherine McKenna when she held the Ministerial post of Environment and Climate Change and handed out $20 million of our tax dollars to create it.  Presumably Smith is not only happy with his presidential position but also pleased to have reconnected with Bruce Lourie who is one of the many members of the Board of Directors.

 As is obvious, Canada once again had the highest number of attendees at COP26 with 277 attendees! If one does the simple math of dividing the Total Party attendees by the number of countries the average is approximately 110 per country.  Canadian attendees were two- and one-half times that average which suggests the Canadian contingent emitted 250% more CO2 per attendee than any other country in attendance!.

Sure, doesn’t appear our Trudeau led Government are practicing what they preach to us minions!

It appears to be an unmitigated “PLOP”!

*CAN-Rac also had a former Board member in attendance in the form of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault.

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

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.