Economy
FORCE, FORCE, FORCE! – The Green Army Will Keep Pushing Unrealistic Energy Transition in 2025 Despite “Reality”
From EnergyNow.ca
By Irina Slav
The facts behind energy transition are so staggeringly counter to common sense that the only way to achieve them is by force, and the only path ahead is failure.
I was going to wrap this eventful year with a nice little post of gratitude but, as usual, the news flow has forced me to revise my plans. So much has happened in the last week days failing to report on it would be a real shame. You may want to put down the hot beverage or, then again, not put it down, you’re the master of you.
A few years ago, during some election campaign or other — we’ve had so many it’s hard to keep track — one of the most popular parties in Bulgaria chose as its slogan “Work, work, work!” Naturally, the slogan became the butt of many jokes almost immediately.
More recently, we were graced with the “Fight! Fight! Fight!” adage from the Trump campaign that was nowhere near as amusing. It also worked. Meanwhile, the transition army is moving fast towards a “Force! Force! Force!” stage in its efforts to keep the green ball rolling.
Consider the latest gem from the International Energy Agency, out this week. The press release for the report was headlined Global coal demand is set to plateau through 2027, with the subheader summary stating that “New IEA report finds that strong deployment of renewables is set to curb growth in coal use even as electricity demand surges, with China – the world’s biggest coal consumer – remaining pivotal.”
What the report actually admitted, however, was that coal supply and demand hit an all-time high this year, they are both likely to scale new highs next year and keep going in that direction until at least 2027. The way things are going with the transition, coal will probably continue growing beyond 2027 as well because much as Fatih and the Transitionettes want it to die, they can’t tell China and India what to do — or anyone else, really, when push comes to shove.
Push appears to have come to shove in Canada already, with the federal government suddenly deciding to walk back its plan for a net-zero grid by 2035. Now, it will be aiming for a net-zero grid by 2050, which is what is going to be happening elsewhere as well —except perhaps in the UK, where everyone’s gone truly insane but more on that later.
So, Canada last week released something called Clean Electricity Regulations that originally, I gather, were supposed to outline plans to remove hydrocarbons from its already pretty green grid by 2035. The provinces, however, objected. And they must have objected strongly enough for an ounce of sanity to crawl into the regulations. Resource minister Jonathan Wilkinson of “We are not interested in investing in LNG facilities” fame called it “flexibility”. Whatever works to make one feel good, I guess.
Here’s a fun fact: the new Clean Electricity Regulations with the revised target come out literally days after the Trudeau government pumped up its emission cut plan, aiming for cuts of 45-50% from 2005 by 2035. All it took was six days and the start of what might end up being complete government meltdown to reconsider that deadline and delay it by 15 years. But stranger things have happened and some are happening right now, one of them at the U.S. Department of Energy.
The regulator of the department, Inspector General Teri Donaldson said in an interim report that the loan office of the DoE should stop giving out loans to green project developers on suspicion of conflicts of interest, or, as Reuters put it, “contractors who vet them may be serving both the agency and potential borrowers.”
From Donaldson’s report: “The projects funded with this authority, which involve innovations in clean energy, advanced transportation, and tribal energy are inherently risky in part because these projects may have struggled to secure funding from traditional sources such as commercial banks and private equity investors.”
Yet these same projects got DoE funding, which naturally raises the question of whether this funding success was at least in part related to the department’s failure to ensure everyone involved in the process was impartial and driven exclusively by professional motives, and I cannot believe I managed to put this stinky situation so delicately.
Anyway, the DoE has struck back immediately, saying the report was full of errors, and accusing Donaldson of “fundamentally misunderstanding” the “implementation of contracting in the Loan Programs Office.” Yeah, that must be it. That’s why she was appointed Inspector General of the department — but by the Trump administration so it doesn’t count.
All of this, however, is pretty weak beer compared to what’s been happening in Europe. VW is not yet bankrupt and the lights are still on in Germany, for the time being, but in the UK, the government has apparently found a way to grow money on trees because the grid operators of the three constituent parts of the UK’s bigger island are planning to spend 77.4 billion pounds on grid upgrades with a view to accommodating more wind and solar into said grid.
The upgrade is a must if Labour’s 2030 decarbonization plan is to have a fighting chance even though the outcome of that fight is already clear and it rhymes with beet, feet, and meat. The money is to be spent between 2026 and 2031, which means that the money trees take two years to start bearing fruit.
Yet here is my concern: with every other form of plant life susceptible to the devastatingly catastrophic effects of climate change, who is to guarantee that the money trees will be spared the devastating catastrophe? No one, that’s who. The UK may fail to accomplish its task of decarbonizing the country’s grid because of the very climate change it wants to neutralize with that decarbonization, and how cruel of an irony is that? Very, is the answer.
Usually, the UK government is difficult to rival in insanity and anti-intelligence but this week we have a serious contender and it’s not Germany’s government. It’s Big Oil and the heavy industry. That’s right. Europe’s energy and heavy industries have been driven to insanity by the climate crusade army although I’d stop short of painting them as innocent victims.
They could have said something. They should’ve said something. And they should’ve said it loud and clear. But they didn’t, so now Big Oil and Big Heavy Industry are asking the EU to force — that’s right, force — consumers to buy their transition cost-loaded products. Because there is no other way of selling those products.
““We will need to focus on demand creation to achieve new investment prospects,” executives from the two sectors said in a letter to Wopke Hoekstra, EU climate commissioner, warning of an “industrial exodus” without intervention,” the FT reported this week.
It also reported that “companies trying to invest in production methods that may result in lower carbon emissions are “pricing themselves out of the market” due to high costs, and authorities need to step in to create demand for their products.” I think this is beautiful, in the same way that an orca catching its pray is beautiful, that is, in a rather terminal way.
I don’t normally like to brag about being right about things, not least because it’s invariably bad things I’m right about, so it is with a sigh of frustration and some boredom that I have to note I have been saying this for two years now — and of course I haven’t been the only one, far from it. The only way for the energy transition to work is through force, and a lot of it. The only way for the transition to work is to eliminate all alternatives to the Chosen Tech, and for some reason Big Oil and the heavy industry seem to believe this is a constructive approach to life, the universe and everything.
What I find most interesting in this situation is the fact that it is extremely easy to find evidence the forceful approach tends to result in outcomes that are the exact opposite of the intended ones. History is full of such evidence. Yet it appears the most essential industries for modern civilization have taken the green “It will work this time” pill and are eagerly digesting it. Which means two things we already knew: one, the transition is doomed as it has been from the start; and two, Europe’s going down unless it uses a fast-closing window to come to its senses. We all know it won’t — unless it’s forced to. Work, work, work, force, force, force, fight, fight, fight.
Business
Long Ignored Criminal Infiltration of Canadian Ports Lead Straight to Trump Tariffs
Sam Cooper
Briefings to Liberal Government on Chinese Infiltration of Vancouver Port and Canada’s Opioid Scourge Ignored
Trump Tariffs Loom as Critics Decry Ottawa’s “Fox in the Hen House” Approach to Border Security
As President Donald Trump readies sweeping tariffs against Canada on Saturday—citing Ottawa’s failure to secure its shared North American borders from fentanyl originating in China—The Bureau has obtained a remarkable December 1999 document from a senior law enforcement official, revealing Ottawa’s longstanding negligence in securing Vancouver’s port against drug trafficking linked to Chinese shipping entities.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The letter, drafted by former Crown prosecutor Scott Newark and addressed to Ottawa’s Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), urged the body to reconsider explosive findings from a leaked RCMP and CSIS report detailing the infiltration of Canada’s “porous” borders by Chinese criminal networks.
Titled “Re: S.I.R.C. Review in relation to Project Sidewinder,” Newark’s letter alleges systemic failures that enabled Chinese State Council owned shipping giant COSCO and Triads with suspected Chinese military ties to penetrate Vancouver’s port system. He further asserts that federal authorities ignored repeated briefings and warnings from Canadian law enforcement—warnings based on intelligence gathered by Canadian officials in Hong Kong, who initiated the Sidewinder review.
Newark also warned that Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s decision to dismantle Canada’s specialized Ports Police and privatize national port control had left the country dangerously exposed to foreign criminal networks, noting he had personally briefed the Canadian government on these concerns as early as 1996.
Addressing his letter to SIRC’s chair, Quebec lawyer Paule Gauthier, Newark wrote:
“As the former (1994-98) Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, I was assigned responsibility for dealing with the issue of the federal government’s changes to control of the national ports and policing therein.”
“This involved close examination of matters such as drug, weapon, and people smuggling through the national ports and, in particular, both the growing presence of organized criminal groups at ports and the ominous hazard control of those ports by such groups represented.”
Newark’s letter goes on to allege widespread failures in Ottawa that facilitated Chinese Triad infiltration of Vancouver’s port, revealing federal authorities’ reluctance to act on warnings from RCMP officer Garry Clement and immigration control officer Brian McAdam—former Canadian officials based in Hong Kong who had sounded the alarm, prompting the Sidewinder review.
Newark explained to SIRC’s chair that, during his tenure as Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, he prepared approximately fifty detailed policy briefs for the government and regularly appeared before parliamentary committees and in private ministerial briefings.
“I can assure you that in all of that time, no clearer warning was ever given by Canada’s rank and file police officers to the national government than what was done in our unsuccessful attempt to prevent the disbandment of the specialized Canada Ports Police in combination with the privatization of the ports themselves,” Newark’s letter to SIRC states.
The letter continues, noting that in October 1996, Newark met with Chrétien’s Transport Minister David Anderson—later addressing the Transport Committee—to highlight the imminent threat posed by Asian organized crime’s infiltration of port operations. Newark’s written briefing to the Minister underscored the gravity of the situation with a blunt question:
“Who exactly are the commercial port operators?”
Citing the Anderson briefing document, Newark’s letter to SIRC states that Anderson had been warned:
“We are, for example, aware of serious concerns amongst the international law enforcement community surrounding the ownership of ports and container industries in Asia and, in particular, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the People’s Republic of China. There is simply no longer any doubt that drugs like heroin are coming from these destinations through the Port of Vancouver, moved by organized criminal gangs whose assets include ‘legitimate’ properties.”
The Anderson briefing also referenced a British Columbia anti-gang unit report, titled “Organized Crime on Vancouver Waterfront,” which made clear that the Longshoreman’s Union had been infiltrated by the Hells Angels.
“The movement of goods through Canada’s ports requires an independence in policing that is impossible without public control,” the report warned.
It concluded:
“This report should be taken as a specific warning to this Government that, prior to downloading operational control over the ports themselves to private interests, Government be absolutely certain as to who owns what—and that it can continue that certainty with power to refuse acquisition of port assets in the future.”
Scott Newark’s letter to SIRC then turns to new intelligence—gathered from Canadian and U.S. officials—that further underscored the vulnerability created by Chrétien’s border policies.
“To now learn that law enforcement and public officials in Canada and the United States have linked a company (COSCO), granted docking and other facilities in Vancouver, to Asian organized crime, arms and drug smuggling is, to say the least, disturbing,” Newark’s December 1999 letter states.
“That this company, its principals, subsidiaries, and partners have been associated with various military agencies of a foreign government—agencies themselves identified by Canadian and American officials as having unhealthy connections to Triad groups—makes a bad situation even worse.”
Newark next addressed the broader implications of Canada’s failure to enforce border security, particularly in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals—a process he had sought to reform while serving with the Canadian Police Association.
Drawing on his experience, he described a deeply flawed immigration enforcement system, one that allowed individuals with serious criminal records to remain in Canada indefinitely. The problem, he wrote, was twofold: not only were foreign criminals able to enter Canada with ease, but authorities also failed to deport those with outstanding arrest warrants.
Newark recounted how, in 1996, a Cabinet Minister requested that he meet with Brian McAdam, a former senior foreign service officer in Hong Kong who had spent years uncovering organized crime’s grip on Canada’s immigration system. McAdam’s detailed revelations, he wrote, had directly led to the launch of Project Sidewinder.
Newark told SIRC that even after leaving the Canadian Police Association in 1998, he remained in contact with McAdam and other officials working to expose this vast and complex national security risk posed by foreign criminal networks.
It was this ongoing communication that led to an even more alarming discovery. Newark wrote that he was stunned to learn that Canada’s government had not only terminated Project Sidewinder but had gone so far as to destroy some related files.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Newark suggests SIRC’s chair, in her review of Sidewinder, should determine whether “Sidewinder should not have been cancelled … why such inappropriate action was taken and at whose direction this was done.”
He concludes that SIRC should also freshly examine why intelligence reporting from the Canadian officials in Hong Kong, Brian McAdam and Garry Clement had been ignored in Ottawa.
Newark’s letter to SIRC says these failures to act on intelligence included the “Inappropriate granting of visas to Triad members or associates” and “Granting of docking facilities with attendant consequences to COSCO”—and “Failure of CIC and Foreign Affairs to respond appropriately to the various information supplied by McAdam and Clement in relation to material pertaining to Sidewinder.”
In an exclusive interview with The Bureau, Garry Clement, who contributed to investigations referenced in Newark’s letter, corroborated many of its claims and provided further insight. Clement recalled his role in Project Sunset, a 1990s investigation into Chinese Triads’ efforts to gain control over Vancouver’s ports.
“I can remember having a discussion with Scott when he wrote that to SIRC because Scott and I go back a long time,” Clement said. “I knew about him writing on it, but I knew it was also buried.”
He described his own intelligence work during the same period:
“I wrote in the nineties when I was the liaison officer in Hong Kong, a very long intelligence brief on the Chinese wanting to basically acquire or build out a port at the Surrey Fraser Docks area. And it was going to be completely controlled by that time, with Triad influence, but it was going to be controlled by China.”
Clement expressed frustration that decades of warnings had gone unheeded:
“The bottom line is that here we are almost 40 years later, talking about an issue that was identified in the ‘90s about our ports and allowing China to have free access—and nothing has been done over that period of time.”
Newark’s urgent recommendation for SIRC to reconsider Sidewinder’s warnings on Vancouver’s ports was never acted upon.
“We still don’t have Port Police. We got nobody overseeing them,” Clement added. “The ports themselves, it’s sort of like putting a fox in the hen house and saying, ‘Behave yourself.’”
Finally, when asked about the Trudeau government’s claim this week that Canada is responsible for only one percent of the fentanyl entering the United States—a figure reported widely in Canadian media—Clement’s response was unequivocal.
“The fact that we’ve become a haven for transnational organized crime, it’s internationally known,” he said. “So when I read that, with the fentanyl—Trump is wrong in that there’s less than 1% of our fentanyl going to the United States. That’s a crock of shit. If you look at the two super labs that were taken down in British Columbia—I think there’s three now—the amount they were capable of producing was more than the whole Vancouver population could have used in 10 years. So we know that Vancouver has become a transshipment point to North America for opiates and cocaine and other drugs because it’s a weak link, and enforcement is not capable of keeping up with transnational organized crime.”
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
That opinion is evidently acknowledged by British Columbia Premier David Eby, according to documents from Canada’s Foreign Interference Commission that say Eby sought meetings with Justin Trudeau’s National Security Advisor.
A record from the Hogue Commission, sanitized for public release, outlines the “context and drivers” behind Eby’s concerns, including “foreign interference; election security; countering fentanyl, organized crime, money laundering, corruption.”
The documents state Ottawa’s Privy Council Office—which provides advice to Justin Trudeau’s cabinet—had recommended that British Columbia continue to work with the federal government on initiatives like the establishment of a new Canada Financial Crimes Agency to bolster the nation’s ability to respond swiftly to complex financial crimes.
Additionally, the PCO highlighted that Canada, the United States, and Mexico were supposedly collaborating on strategies to reduce the supply of fentanyl, including addressing precursor chemicals and preventing the exploitation of commercial shipping channels—a critical area where British Columbia, and specifically the Port of Vancouver, plays a significant role.
Eby acknowledged the concerns again this week in an interview with Macleans.
“I understood Trump’s concerns about drugs coming in. We’ve got a serious fentanyl problem in B.C.; we see the precursor chemicals coming into B.C. from China and Mexico. We see ties to Asian and Mexican organized crime groups. We’d been discussing all of that with the American ambassador and fellow governors. That’s why it was such a strange turnaround, from ‘Hey, we’re working together on this!’ to suddenly finding ourselves in the crosshairs.”
Yet, despite Eby’s claims of intergovernmental efforts, critics—including Garry Clement—argue that nothing has changed. Vancouver’s port remains alarmingly vulnerable, a decades-old concern that continues to resurface as fentanyl and other illicit drugs flood North American markets.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
Ottawa’s “Net Zero” emission-reduction plan will cost Canadian workers $8,000 annually by 2050
From the Fraser Institute
Ross McKitrick
Canada’s Path to Net Zero by 2050: Darkness at the End of the Tunnel
The federal government’s plan to achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions will result in 254,000 fewer jobs and cost workers $8,000 in lower wages by 2050, all while failing to meet the government’s own emission-reduction target, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Ottawa’s emission-reduction plan will significantly hurt Canada’s economy and cost workers money and jobs, but it won’t achieve the target they’ve set because it is infeasible,” said Ross McKitrick, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of Canada’s Path to Net Zero by 2050: Darkness at the End of the Tunnel.
The government’s Net Zero by 2050 emission-reduction plan includes: the federal carbon tax, clean fuel standards, and various other GHG-related regulations, such as energy efficiency requirements for buildings, fertilizer restrictions on farms, and electric vehicle mandates.
By 2050, these policies will have imposed significant costs on the Canadian economy and on workers.
For example:
• Canada’s economy will be 6.2 per cent smaller in 2050 than it would have been without these policies.
• Workers will make $8,000 less annually.
• And there will be 254,000 fewer jobs.
The study also shows that even a carbon tax of $1,200 per tonne (about $2.70 per litre of gas) would not get emissions to zero. Crucially, the study finds that the economically harmful policies can’t achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and will only reduce GHG emissions by an estimated 70 per cent of the government’s target.
“Despite political rhetoric, Ottawa’s emission-reduction policies will impose enormous costs without even meeting the government’s target,” McKitrick said.
“Especially as the US moves aggressively to unleash its energy sector, Canadian policymakers need to rethink the damage these policies will inflict on Canadians and change course.”
- The Government of Canada has committed to going beyond the Paris target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40 percent below 2005 levels as of 2030 and now intends to achieve net zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as of 2050. This study provides an outlook through 2050 of Canada’s path to net zero by answering two questions: will the Government of Canada’s current Emission Reduction Plan (ERP) get us to net zero by 2050, and if not, is it feasible for any policy to get us there?
- First, a simulation of the ERP extended to 2050 results in emissions falling by approximately 70 percent relative to where they would be otherwise, but still falling short of net zero. Moreover, the economic costs are significant: real GDP declines by seven percent, income per worker drops by six percent, 250,000 jobs are lost, and the annual cost per worker exceeds $8,000.
- Second, the study explores whether a sharply rising carbon tax alone could achieve net zero. At $400 per tonne, emissions decrease by 68 percent, but tripling the carbon tax to $1,200 per tonne achieves only an additional 6 percent reduction. At this level, the economic impacts are severe: GDP would shrink by 18 percent, and incomes per worker would fall by 17 percent, compared with the baseline scenario.
- The conclusion is clear: Without transformative abatement technologies, Canada is unlikely to reach net zero by 2050. Even the most efficient policies impose unsustainable costs, making them unlikely to gain public support.
Ross McKitrick
-
Uncategorized1 day ago
When America attacks
-
Uncategorized23 hours ago
Trump’s ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Agenda Will Likely Take On An Entirely New Shape
-
Uncategorized22 hours ago
All 6 people trying to replace Trudeau agree with him on almost everything
-
International2 days ago
Elon Musk calls for laws ‘short enough to be understandable by a normal person’
-
International2 days ago
WEF 2025: AI CEO Says Facial Recognition Will Replace Digital IDs in Smart Cities
-
espionage2 days ago
CSIS Officer Alleged “Interference” In Warrant Targeting Trudeau Party Powerbroker
-
Health1 day ago
Canadian media might not be able to ignore new studies on harmful gender transitions for minors
-
Energy2 days ago
Trump’s Administration Can Supercharge America’s Energy Comeback Even Further