Connect with us

Opinion

Dear Pipeline Protesters – an open letter

Published

4 minute read

By: Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr – President & Founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors

Dear pipeline protesters,

If I asked you to plug in 73 items in your home, could you? Even if you could, now what if I asked you to plug-in 1,100?

How about starting with 175 itemsā€¦ then ask you to do 10,700 items?

Iā€™m guessing you would need to do some restructuring to be able to have that many items needing power.

Welcome to China.

In the mid-1980s, Chinese communities like Yiwu and Shenzhen were only 73,000 and 175,000 people respectively; and now they are now over 1.1 Million and 10.7 Million people.

Much of the power generation for this needed upgrade is coming from coal.

The main port? Vancouver.

Yes, according to a National Post article:
Yes, anti-pipeline Vancouver really is North Americaā€™s largest exporter of coal
anti-pipeline BC is home to the largest coal exporting port in North America and going through a $275 Million upgrade.

If the BC NDP/Green politicians aligning with anti-pipeline protestors are ever going to help China get off massive pollution from coal, they need to help switch them to oil and natural gas.

Iā€™m all for cleaner air, so can we at least get China to the next stage of energy consumption in society instead of leaving them in the coal mine with a dead canary?

Or is it, as I suspect, that you only wave the environmental flag in order to get votes from those that donā€™t know any better just so you can get a high paid powerful position with a pension?

Clearly, since you are leading Canada in polluting our waterways with raw sewage this must be the case.
http://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/04/11/we-really-should-be-a-model-for-the-entire-world-but-were-just-not-there-yet-advocate-on-vancouvers-sewage-overflow-problem.html

I donā€™t think you understand that pipelines arenā€™t just about oil and gas.

Pipelines are about transporting items in an efficient, cost-effective, non-air polluting way (then say by train or tractor-trailer) all while the same time freeing up cargo spaces on trains and highways for other things that canā€™t be shipped by a pipeline to help all Canadians.

Things that canā€™t be shipped in a pipeline, like wind turbines, solar panels, medical equipment, groceries, produce, grain, potash, home building tools & materials, etc.

Are pipeline protestors against transporting medical supplies and equipment to help those that need it?

Are pipeline protestors against feeding the world with our grain?

Are pipeline protestors against building homes and shelters for those that need one?

Maybe pipeline protestors are against us building solar farms and wind turbines for energy production?

I havenā€™t even talked about the economic impact all of these can do to provide a better quality of life, food, shelter, and healthcare for everyone in Canada.

But clearly, pipeline protestors must be against that too.

So please, if you could stop creating a dystopian society, we’d like to get back to building a better place.

CEO | Director CGL Tax Professional Corporation With the Income Tax Act always by his side on his smart-phone, Cory has taken tax-nerd to a whole other level. His background in strategic planning, tax-efficient corporate reorganizations, business management, and financial planning bring a well-rounded approach to assist private corporations and their owners increase their wealth through the strategies that work best for them. An entrepreneur himself, Cory started CGL with the idea that he wanted to help clients adapt to the ever-changing tax and economic environment and increase their wealth through optimizing the use of tax legislation coupled with strategic business planning and financial analysis. His relaxed blue-collar approach in a traditionally white-collar industry can raise a few eyebrows, but in his own words: ā€œPeople donā€™t pay me for my looks. My modeling career ended at birth.ā€ More info: https://CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

Follow Author

Carbon Tax

Carneyā€™s climate plan will continue to cost Canadians

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Mark Carney, our next prime minister, has floated a climate policy plan that he says will be better for Canadians than the ā€œdivisive [read: widely hated] consumer carbon tax.ā€

But in reality, Carneyā€™s plan is an exercise in misdirection. Under his plan, instead of paying the ā€œconsumer carbon taxā€ directly and receiving carbon rebates, Canadians will pay more via higher prices for products that flow from Canadaā€™s ā€œlarge industrial emittersā€ who Carney plans to saddle with higher carbon taxes, indirectly imposing the consumer carbon tax by passing those costs onto Canadians.

Carney also wants to shift government subsidies to consumer products of so-called ā€œclean technologies.ā€ As Carney told theĀ National Observer, ā€œWe’re introducing changes so that if you decide to insulate your home, install a heat pump, or switch to a fuel-efficient car, those companies will pay youā€”not the taxpayer, not the government, but those companies.ā€ What Carney does not mention is that much of the costs imposed on ā€œthose companiesā€ will also be folded into the costs of the products consumers buy, but the cause of rising prices will be less distinguishable and attributable to government action.

Moreover, Carney says he wants to make Canada a ā€œclean energy superpowerā€ and ā€œexpand and modernize our energy infrastructure so that we are less dependent on foreign suppliers, and the United States as a customer.ā€ But this too is absurd. Far from being in any way poised to become a ā€œclean energy superpower,ā€ Canada likelyĀ wonā€™t meetĀ its own projected electricity demand by 2050 under existing environmental regulations.

For example, to generate the electricity needed through 2050 solely with solar power, Canada would need to build 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Albertaā€™s Travers Solar Project, which would take about 1,700 construction-years to accomplish. If we went with wind power to meet future demand, Canada would need to build 574 wind-power installations the size of Quebecā€™s Seigneurie de Beaupre wind-power station, which would take about 1,150 construction years to accomplish. And if we relied solely on hydropower, weā€™d need to build 134 hydro-power facilities the size of the Site C power station in British Columbia, which would take 938 construction years to accomplish. Finally, if we relied solely on nuclear power, weā€™d need to construct 16 new nuclear plants the size of Ontarioā€™s Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, taking ā€œonlyā€ 112 construction years to accomplish.

Again, Mark Carneyā€™s climate plan is an exercise in misdirectionā€”a rhetorical sleight of hand to convince Canadians that heā€™ll lighten the burden on taxpayers and shift away from the Trudeau governmentā€™s overzealous climate policies of the past decade. But scratch the surface of the Carney plan and youā€™ll see climate policies that will hit Canadian consumers harder, with likely higher prices for goods and services. As a federal election looms, Canadians should demand from all candidatesā€”no matter their political stripeā€”a detailed plan to rekindle Canadaā€™s energy sector and truly lighten the load for Canadians and their families.

Continue Reading

Bjorn Lomborg

Despite what activists say, the planet is not on fire

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By BjĆørn Lomborg

 

Nearly half of young Canadians surveyed in a 2022 study said they believed humanity is doomed because of climate change, while more than three-quarters said they were frightened. No wonder. They have grown up bombarded both by footage of natural disasters, not just in Canada but around the world, and by activistsā€™ claims that climate change is making the planet unliveable. But thatā€™s just wrong.

The ubiquity of phone cameras and our ability to instantly communicate mean ā€” the ā€œCNN effectā€ ā€” that the media can show more weather disasters now than ever before. But that doesnā€™t mean the disasters are deadlier or costlier.

As we saw in the first article in this series, deaths from climate-related disasters have dropped precipitously. On average in the 1870s five million people a year died from such disasters. A century ago, about half a million people a year did. In the past decade, however, the death toll worldwide was fewer than 10,000 people a year. As global population has more than quintupled, disaster deaths have declined 500-fold. And this dramatic decline is true for all major disaster categories, including floods, flash floods, cold waves and wind disasters, and for rich and poor countries alike. But you never hear about that during disaster reporting.

Floods are the most costly and frequent Canadian disasters. But the common claim that flood costs are rising dramatically ignores the obvious fact that when a flood plain has many more houses on it than decades ago and the houses are worth much more then the same flood will cause a lot more damage. We need to keep these changes in mind and measure costs in proportion to GDP. Even the UN says thatā€™s how to measure whether cities and towns are safer.

Though peer-reviewed analysis for Canada is lacking there is plenty to draw on elsewhere. As so often, the U.S. has the most comprehensive data. It shows that while flood costs have increased in absolute terms, thatā€™s only because more people and property are in harmā€™s way. In the countryā€™s worst year for flooding, 1913, damage exceeded two per cent of GDP, though the yearly average in that era was 0.5 per cent. Today itā€™s less than 0.05 per cent of GDP ā€” just a tenth what it was a century ago.

We know adaptation makes disasters much less threatening over time. Consider sea level rise, which threatens to flood coastal zones around the world. A much-cited study shows that at the turn of this century an average of 3.4 million people a year experienced coastal flooding, with $11 billion in annual damages. At the same time, around $13 billion or 0.05 per cent of global GDP was spent on coastal defences.

By the end of this century, more people will be in harmā€™s way, and climate change could raise sea levels by as much as a metre. If we donā€™t improve coastal defences, vast areas will be routinely inundated, flooding 187 million people and causing $55 trillion in annual damages, more than five per cent of global GDP in 2100. This finding does routinely make headlines.

But it ignores adaptation, which research shows will cost much less. On average, countries will avoid flood damage by spending just 0.005 per cent of GDP. Even with higher sea levels, far fewer people will be flooded ā€” by 2100 just 15,000 people a year. Even the combined cost of adaptation and damage will be just 0.008 per cent of GDP.

Global Burned Area 1901-2024

Enormously ambitious emissions-reduction policies costing hundreds of trillions of dollars could cut the number of people flooded at centuryā€™s end from that 15,000 number down to about 10,000 per year. But notice the difference: Adaptation reduces the number currently being flooded by almost 3.4 million and avoids another 184 million people being flooded annually by 2100. At best, climate policy can save just 0.005 million.

We often hear that the ā€œworld is on fireā€ because of climate change. New Liberal leader Mark Carney repeated that in his acceptance speech Sunday. And itā€™s true that in 2023 more of Canadaā€™s surface area burned than in any year since 1970, with climate change probably partly to blame. Even so, two points need to be kept in mind.

First, most studies projecting an increase in wildfires ignore adaptation. In fact, humans donā€™t like fire and make great efforts to reduce it, which is why since 1900 humanity has seen less burned area, not more. The data from last century involve historical reconstruction but since 1997, NASA satellites have tracked all significant fires. The record shows a dramatic fall in global burned area. Last year it was the second lowest, and in 2022 the lowest ever. And studies find that with adaptation the area burned will keep falling, even without climate action.

Second, reducing emissions is a terribly inefficient way to help. Studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency show that even drastic cuts in emissions would reduce the burned area only slightly this century. Simpler, cheaper, faster policies like better forest management, prescribed fires and cleaning out undergrowth can help much more.

The flood of disaster porn is terrifying our kids and skewing our perception, and that can only lead to bad climate policy.

BjĆørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X