Officially, the meeting was being held to study a section of the main estimates — the initial spending allocations the government lays before Parliament each spring — for a dozen federal agencies and departments.
A day later, Higgs and Smith put forward similar ideas — arguing that if Canada exported more natural gas, it might be used to displace dirtier coal power in other countries.
While the premiers were testifying this week, more than 300 Canadian economists were signing an open letter expressing support for carbon pricing and challenging some of the arguments made against the existing policy.
Smith objects to the Liberal government’s proposed cap on oil and gas emissions, the clean electricity regulations now being developed and the sales targets for zero-emission vehicles.
With the premiers apparently so eager to discuss climate policy, it’s tempting to wonder what might be clarified and accomplished if they were all invited to Ottawa for a televised meeting — with the expectation that they would arrive with a fully costed and independently analyzed plan for how their province would reduce its emissions in line with Canada’s national targets.
In the meantime, there’s nothing stopping Poilievre from submitting his own climate plan to the parliamentary budget officer for a study of its economic and fiscal impacts before sending it to a private firm to project its emissions reductions.
The original article contains 1,092 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
A day later, Higgs and Smith put forward similar ideas — arguing that if Canada exported more natural gas, it might be used to displace dirtier coal power in other countries.
That word might is doing a whole lot of heavy lifting here.
Do we have any actual evidence that China (or anyone else for that matter) would actually offset any coal plants with Canadian Natural Gas, instead of just burning that natural gas in addition to coal? Retrofitting a power plant for natural gas isn’t free, and China can already get lots of natural gas from Russia if they wanted (the Power of Siberia pipeline can handle 61 billion cubic meters per year, but only delivers about 23 bcm/year). Nothing is stopping China from moving from coal to natural gas — but there appears to be no real will to do so.
This argument from the two Prairie Premiers sounds a whole lot more like wishful thinking than actual policy.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Officially, the meeting was being held to study a section of the main estimates — the initial spending allocations the government lays before Parliament each spring — for a dozen federal agencies and departments.
A day later, Higgs and Smith put forward similar ideas — arguing that if Canada exported more natural gas, it might be used to displace dirtier coal power in other countries.
While the premiers were testifying this week, more than 300 Canadian economists were signing an open letter expressing support for carbon pricing and challenging some of the arguments made against the existing policy.
Smith objects to the Liberal government’s proposed cap on oil and gas emissions, the clean electricity regulations now being developed and the sales targets for zero-emission vehicles.
With the premiers apparently so eager to discuss climate policy, it’s tempting to wonder what might be clarified and accomplished if they were all invited to Ottawa for a televised meeting — with the expectation that they would arrive with a fully costed and independently analyzed plan for how their province would reduce its emissions in line with Canada’s national targets.
In the meantime, there’s nothing stopping Poilievre from submitting his own climate plan to the parliamentary budget officer for a study of its economic and fiscal impacts before sending it to a private firm to project its emissions reductions.
The original article contains 1,092 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
That word might is doing a whole lot of heavy lifting here.
Do we have any actual evidence that China (or anyone else for that matter) would actually offset any coal plants with Canadian Natural Gas, instead of just burning that natural gas in addition to coal? Retrofitting a power plant for natural gas isn’t free, and China can already get lots of natural gas from Russia if they wanted (the Power of Siberia pipeline can handle 61 billion cubic meters per year, but only delivers about 23 bcm/year). Nothing is stopping China from moving from coal to natural gas — but there appears to be no real will to do so.
This argument from the two Prairie Premiers sounds a whole lot more like wishful thinking than actual policy.
They’ve been smelling the dinosaur farts and think they can sell them.
Higgs is the Premier of New Brunswick, which FYI is not in the Prairies…
Too bad the idea of LNG being cleaner than coal is largely overstated and can sometimes be worse.
This is, as usual, all about maintaining the status quo and keeping money flowing to fuel companies.
https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=XhkNTMZEDe4jfTdH
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=XhkNTMZEDe4jfTdH
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.