this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
33 points (94.6% liked)

Canada

8549 readers
1897 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (7 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (6 children)

if Canada exported more natural gas

Fracking earthquakes and these people STILL want to sacrifice the water table to sell dinosaur farts.

[–] Yaztromo 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

As I mentioned in another post on this topic, that “might” is doing a TON of heavy lifting in Higg’s argument.

AFAIK, no countries have stepped up to say they’d shut down coal fired plants if only they could get hold of more natural gas. China usually comes up in this conversation, but they already have a pipeline with Russia that supplies natural gas, and AFAIK it isn’t even at capacity yet. If China really wanted to replace coal with natural gas, they’d be doing it now with Russian gas, and wouldn’t have to wait the decade-plus it would take to get the infrastructure built to ship Canadian natural gas to them.

If Higgs draws a dick on his forehead I might give him $100. I probably won’t, and have never discussed any plans to do so, but who knows? I might!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

With fugitive emissions, methane is worse than coal. A coal leak just turns into a regular ol rock on the side of the railway. A methane leak is very hard to detect and releases much more GHG potential than even the burning of that coal.

I'm not advocating for coal, just saying they're both shit and we really shouldn't even be having this conversation.

[–] Yaztromo 2 points 11 months ago

Agreed — I think replacing coal with natural gas is just a half-step that mostly benefits those with natural gas to sell, and just delays the overall transition.

But of course the people arguing for natural gas don’t care about that, so it’s easier to challenge them on the fact that they’re also inventing some pipe dream without evidence that if we could get gas to China that they’d suddenly be all for converting (or shutting down) coal fired plants — when there is _no evidence for that anywhere, and where they could be doing that today if they really wanted to.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)