The G7 nations have committed to eliminating the use of fossil fuels by 2100.
What Canada’s premiers said in July is wrong — there are simple answers to developing a national energy strategy — but what’s difficult is making tough decisions.
While the need for a Canadian energy strategy should be a key federal election issue for all political parties, it’s not just a national version that’s required.
Two proposed liquefied natural gas projects have received approval from the National Energy Board to export LNG, but they are counting on the United States to build pipeline capacity into New England in order for them to obtain the supply needed to underpin their ambitious plans.
[Introductory commenty by website editor: This is a useful article on the oil upgrading and refining sector in Canada.]
B.C. proponents, expecting a production surge, argue more refineries and upgraders would help Canada keep more of its oil wealth here. And where Alberta falters, B.C. hopes to rise with refining projects of its own
Meteorologist Claire Martin has unleashed a storm of criticism against Tom Mulcair over the NDP leader’s open-ended stand on oil-pipeline expansion in the Vancouver area.
“I would call him flip-floppy at best,” the Green candidate in North Vancouver told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview.
According to the former CBC weather presenter, Mulcair hasn’t laid out a clear position regarding Kinder Morgan’s plan to triple the capacity of its existing pipeline.
Since her common-sense quip that most of Canada’s tar sands reserves will have to stay in the ground, Linda McQuaig has been vilified by much of the political establishment and (rightfully) defended by a minority of voices in the media.
New Democratic Party Leader Thomas Mulcair has essentially adopted the Obama doctrine when it comes to approving new oil sands pipelines – projects would be judged based on whether they significantly increase Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Watching Thursday’s leaders’ debate, the starting line for Canada’s longest election campaign since the 1800s, was a sobering experience for those of us familiar with the international scientific consensus on how to respond to the threat of climate change.
I say consensus, because among scientists there is no debate. Climate change is real, it is caused by us and it will cause devastating changes to our world if we don’t take decisive action.
