Trudeau government at pains to explain Pacific Northwest LNG

[Derek 2.0]

Will they? Yes, end use is an important factor as well

Not in this discussion........Canada has no feasible influence on end use (be it oil sands or fracked LNG from Northern BC), hence its a moot point....likewise msj's citing of various fuel sources emissions of carbon per 1 million btu burned.

The point is the Trudeau government approved a new source of carbon emissions that will produce an equal or greater amount of greenhouse gases in Canada then our current two largest sources.......it wouldn't mater if this plant rendered unicorn tears and recycled hemp........

If BC is to meet the 2050 carbon reduction targets we will have to accept that this single source plant will account for nearly 80% of the province's total emissions........In other words, Trudeau just confirmed that he has no intention of coming close to meeting the limits his government signed onto (The previous Harper governments to boot) in Paris late last year.

Politically, in BC (and I'm sure the sentiment will spread across the country) Trudeau has just alienated the progressive/Young voters/environmentalist/First Nation support he received during the last election.....not only with this proposal, but (as mentioned) another LNG plant in Woodfibre and more so the Site C dam.....and it can be assumed the Kinder Morgan expansion later this year or early next.

Trudeau would have been better received if he just gave British Columbians the finger like his Dad:

“Canada is back,” he said in Paris at the Climate Talks last year. “We’re Canadian — and we’re here to help” he said last week at the United Nations, pledging more support to refugees. Honestly, it’s such a change from Harper that lots of people including the media— are happy to just hear the lovely words. And don’t get me wrong, they are lovely.

They are also just words.

And maybe that’s the thing Trudeau, for all his media savvy, just doesn’t get.

The speeches, the selfies, the symbolic fourth rings on the symbolic black rods aren’t a legacy. At best, they’re cute footnotes in a magazine feature about young voters abandoning him and his party en masse for betraying them on climate change. Maybe they’re in the slideshow alongside an article about how B.C. residents rose up to recall Liberal MPs in punishment for making their lands and waters a sacrifice zone to unwanted energy projects. At worst, they’re the ironically juxtaposed tweets accompanying the video interview from the steps of the Supreme Court as B.C. Nations sue the government again for forgoing good-faith negotiations in favour of a quick win with big infrastructure companies.

[BC_chick]

That's not really fair. Harper was a proponent of Northern Gateway - that's gone now. It's likely that Energy East is also a no go. Transmountain is probably a yes. You can't say no to economic development all of the time. The problem last time - you can't say yes all the time, either.

The comparison to Harper was an afterthought, forget I even brought it up.

My point which you overlooked is that the fine balance between economic development and environmental protection did not come out of nowhere. Trudeau knew Canada needs economic growth when he went to Paris and made the promises that he did.

Instead of being candid about the importance of economic development, he made grandiose promises, flashed a dazzling smile saying "Canada's Back"... and then turned around and said yes to a project that is going (at best projections) put the equivalent of one MILLION cars on the road. And that's best case scenario, it's more likely to be 50% more than that.

He went back on his commitments and I'm sorry but economic development is not a good excuse because if that's the case, he never should have committed in the first place.

[?Impact]

Canada has no feasible influence on end use

Agreed, which is why the only valid comparison is in joules of energy capacity in the exported product.

Are you agreeing with me that Canada should not export raw energy? Should we say no to this, oil sands, and all other energy exports? We know that Alberta has already increased it's GHG emissions since Canada signed onto reduction totals by 100 million tons or 10 times the size of this plant, and plans to increase it by at least that amount again in the next 15 years.

[TimG]

Are you agreeing with me that Canada should not export raw energy?

Canada needs exports. Energy is our comparative advantage in the global economy. No other sector has to potential to generate as much export revenue. So the real question is not whether Canada should export energy but how many government services are you prepared to go without if we don't.

[BC_chick]

The point is the Trudeau government approved a new source of carbon emissions that will produce an equal or greater amount of greenhouse gases in Canada then our current two largest sources.......it wouldn't mater if this plant rendered unicorn tears and recycled hemp........

If BC is to meet the 2050 carbon reduction targets we will have to accept that this single source plant will account for nearly 80% of the province's total emissions........In other words, Trudeau just confirmed that he has no intention of coming close to meeting the limits his government signed onto (The previous Harper governments to boot) in Paris late last year.

Politically, in BC (and I'm sure the sentiment will spread across the country) Trudeau has just alienated the progressive/Young voters/environmentalist/First Nation support he received during the last election.....not only with this proposal, but (as mentioned) another LNG plant in Woodfibre and more so the Site C dam.....and it can be assumed the Kinder Morgan expansion later this year or early next.

I don't understand the bickering about details either, the real issue is that by ok'ing this deal, we went back on everything we committed to do.

Paris was one big fat lie. Canada never left.

Edited September 29, 2016 by BC_chick

[msj]

and then turned around and said yes to a project that is going (at best projections) put the equivalent of one MILLION cars on the road. And that's best case scenario, it's more likely to be 50% more than that.

So, with carbon taxes, if BC electrifies its fossil fuel transportation over to more efficient hydro, renewables, & NG and gets, say, 3 million cars by 2050 switched over then we're probably all good?

Possible?

Someone like Bonam or someone else trustworthy enough to do the math?

[Derek 2.0]

Are you agreeing with me that Canada should not export raw energy? Should we say no to this, oil sands, and all other energy exports? We know that Alberta has already increased it's GHG emissions since Canada signed onto reduction totals by 100 million tons or 10 times the size of this plant, and plans to increase it by at least that amount again in the next 15 years.

No, from a GHG POV oil and gas refinement and end use maters little if its in China or Northern Alberta.......inversely, it makes little economic sense unless you're a communist.......industry isn't going to build excess refining capacity in Canada.

You're not suggesting Trudeau's next Hero Project should be the State sponsored construction of oil & gas refineries? They would either be under used or contribute to the glut already on the market......depressing oil prices and our economy........well pushing back renewable energy.

[?Impact]

You're not suggesting Trudeau's next Hero Project should be the State sponsored construction of oil & gas refineries?

Refined energy is still energy. We should be exporting value added products.

[BC_chick]

So, with carbon taxes, if BC electrifies its fossil fuel transportation over to more efficient hydro, renewables, & NG and gets, say, 3 million cars by 2050 switched over then we're probably all good?

Possible?

Someone like Bonam or someone else trustworthy enough to do the math?

In absence of Bonam's trustworthy analysis, I'm going with the consensus of the scientists who say we won't meet the targets if LNG goes through. http://media.wix.com/ugd/f85bab_86eaddc3c8f04f5f967f0a5ccb333cda.pdf

[Derek 2.0]

I don't understand the bickering about details either, the real issue is that by ok'ing this deal, we went back on everything we committed to do.

Paris was one big fat lie. Canada never left.

I know.......don't get me wrong, the Federal Tories currently support and supported these projects and the voting public in BC knew it........maybe if they had of made more pretty mouth noises (lied) like Trudeau they'd still be Government.....

Oh well, a whole other generation of Canadians needed to come to the realization that you can't spell Liberal without L-i-e............

Hell hath no fury like a women voter scorned.........

[Derek 2.0]

In absence of Bonam's trustworthy analysis, I'm going with the consensus of the scientists who say we won't meet the targets if LNG goes through. http://media.wix.com/ugd/f85bab_86eaddc3c8f04f5f967f0a5ccb333cda.pdf

Ouch........where did you find that?

[msj]

In absence of Bonam's trustworthy analysis, I'm going with the consensus of the scientists who say we won't meet the targets if LNG goes through. http://media.wix.com/ugd/f85bab_86eaddc3c8f04f5f967f0a5ccb333cda.pdf

Good link.

However, I'm more interested in seeing if there is a solution to this as I have suggested (or something better not already suggested).

If the world ends up moving towards renewables/hydro/NG/nuclear at the expense of coal and oil then I prefer Canada to be moving in that direction too.

We are already behind on LNG so either get it built or don't bother with coal/oil/NG at all and see what that does to our economy and government programs.

At least we will have cleaner air and water.

Oh, and we can say we have met our targets while the rest of the world exceeds theirs.

[BC_chick]

Ouch........where did you find that?

CBC of course.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lng-petronas-pacific-northwest-ghg-emissions-1.3607070

[BC_chick]

Good link.

However, I'm more interested in seeing if there is a solution to this as I have suggested (or something better not already suggested).

If the world ends up moving towards renewables/hydro/NG/nuclear at the expense of coal and oil then I prefer Canada to be moving in that direction too.

We are already behind on LNG so either get it built or don't bother with coal/oil/NG at all and see what that does to our economy and government programs.

At least we will have cleaner air and water.

Oh, and we can say we have met our targets while the rest of the world exceeds theirs.

I'm not aware of anything that they're going to do to offset LNG, so maybe it's wishful thinking on your part.

At the very least, can you acknowledge that in absence of an offset plan, this deal will ensure that Paris was a farce?

[?Impact]

From what I can find out the comparisons were:

This plant: 12 million tons LNG/year, or 2.25E17 Joules

Syncrude: 35 million barrels/year, or 7.07E16 Joules

TransAlta coal plant: 2,141 MW capacity* or maximum of 6.75E16 Joules

*Does anyone know what the actual production from this plant, the above is assuming it was running at 100% capacity every hour of every single day of the year

All the above are somewhere near 11 megatons of GHG emissions

Net result is this plant will provide over 3 times the energy of the others with similar emissions.

[TimG]

In absence of Bonam's trustworthy analysis, I'm going with the consensus of the scientists who say we won't meet the targets if LNG goes through. http://media.wix.com/ugd/f85bab_86eaddc3c8f04f5f967f0a5ccb333cda.pdf

We are not going to meet those silly GHG targets no matter what we do. GHG targets are the most idiotic approach to the CO2 issue and not meeting them is not an argument against the project. Edited September 29, 2016 by TimG

[BC_chick]

We are not going to meet those silly GHG targets no matter what we do. GHG targets are the most idiotic approach to the CO2 issue and not meeting them is not an argument against the project.

Jesus, did you even open the link? Yes, it absolutely is the argument against it.

And sure, all those respected scientists who signed that letter are just 'silly'. Why am I listening to what they have to say when I have you?

[TimG]

At the very least, can you acknowledge that in absence of an offset plan, this deal will ensure that Paris was a farce?

Everyone who understands the issues knew it was a farce from the start. Doing something about CO2 requires that we stop obsessing about arbitrary targets picked out of a hat so politicians can pretend to do something. Reducing CO2 requires an investment in R&D and a long term view of the problem. e.g. it is better to burn fossil fuels today to produce cheap electricity if that leads to faster EV adoption. Inflating the cost of electricity simply makes ICE cars more attractive no matter what carbon tax you put on gas.

[TimG]

And sure, all those respected scientists who signed that letter are just 'silly'. Why am I listening to what they have to say when I have you?

Those "scientists" are simply ideological hacks who have long ago abandoned any pretense of scientific objectivity (for gawd sakes Sukuzi is one of them!). In any a case, the question of whether CO2 targets are useful policy choices is not a question that they are qualified to answer. Note that I did not say we should not work to reduce CO2. I only said that CO2 targets are an idiotic approach to the problem. I am happy to talk about what I think will be more effective but I have no interest appeals to authority where the authorities you use are not remotely qualified to have an authoritative opinion on policy. Edited September 29, 2016 by TimG

[BC_chick]

Everyone who understands the issues knew it was a farce from the start. Doing something about CO2 requires that we stop obsessing about arbitrary targets picked out of a hat so politicians can pretend to do something. Reducing CO2 requires an investment in R&D and a long term view of the problem. e.g. it is better to burn fossil fuels today to produce cheap electricity if that leads to faster EV adoption. Inflating the cost of electricity simply makes ICE cars more attractive no matter what carbon tax you put on gas.

Look Tim, no offence, but when it comes to climate-change, I believe climate-change scientists over anonymous internet posters. No hard feelings, k?

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not aware of anything that they're going to do to offset LNG, so maybe it's wishful thinking on your part.

Exactly....there isn't, in terms of GHGs, burning LNG is actually worse in many ways then burning gasoline......though LNG is typically more efficient and "burns cleaner", natural gas is comprised of typically ~80% methane and releases said methane as its being burnt......just as burning gasoline releases carbon dioxide......the problem, methane gases in the atmosphere retain nearly 100 times more heat then carbon dioxide.........

[msj]

I'm not aware of anything that they're going to do to offset LNG, so maybe it's wishful thinking on your part.

At the very least, can you acknowledge that in absence of an offset plan, this deal will ensure that Paris was a farce?

So you are not expecting some kind of carbon tax?

[bush_cheney2004]

No worries...this LNG export project will likely never be completed to the scale intended anyway, if at all.

[TimG]

Look Tim, no offence, but when it comes to climate-change, I believe climate-change scientists over anonymous internet posters. No hard feelings, k?

Your "scientists" are not experts on policy. They may know something about climate science but that does not make them any more informed than an "anonymous internet poster" when it comes to questions of policy.

Frankly, I find the 'appeal unqualified authority' as a justification for refusing to discuss these questions to be tiresome. It is a mark of an ideologue that only cares about "climate change" because it is politically useful.

[BC_chick]

So you are not expecting some kind of carbon tax?

You answered my question with a question.