We're approaching the end of 2023. And, you have to wonder what Mr. Trudeau has in-store for Canadians in general, and the prairies in particular, for 2024. If you're concerned, so am I. But I'm also grateful, and wanting to encourage liberty-loving Canadians to learn from truckers and farmers how to be agents of change who no longer naively sit back waiting for ethical, intelligent, political leadership.In my closing Western Standard article for 2023 I argue that while liberty-loving Canadians won a few battles this year, our provincial and federal conservative leaders have barely begun to go on the offensive. Unless we as voters and citizens convey our expectations to our conservative leaders, I believe these wins will not translate to ultimate victory.We must begin thinking past the next election cycle. First, I am grateful for the Canadian truckers and farmers who stood up against the tyranny of provincial and federal COVID measures, which catalyzed the change of leadership in our federal opposition Conservative Party.Likewise, I salute the many tens of thousands more who marched, convoyed and protested in solidarity with those protesting along our southern border in Ontario and Alberta, together with those trampled at Tiananmen-Square-on-Parliament-Hill.These every day blue-collar Canadians reminded us “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”Second, I am grateful for my fellow Albertan Conservatives who, galvanized by Trudeau's use of the Emergencies [War Measures] Act, and pushed for a change of leadership within the United Conservative Party to elect Danielle Smith, with her vision of Alberta`s sovereignty within a united Canada.In retrospect, these look like coordinated acts of defiance by normally law-abiding Canadians who broke the collective COVID psychosis within our provincial governments in 2022.As a result, we now have Scott Moe with his Saskatchewan First legislation and Premier Danielle Smith's Sovereignty Act effectively giving the middle finger to Trudeau's unconstitutional plans.Third and finally, I am extremely grateful two federal courts have finally sided with the provinces.But now, a dose of reality.Let's say Canadians oust Trudeau and Singh in the next federal election. Let's say Pierre Poilievre's CPC then overturns the inflationary weather tax legislation, together with the 2030 CO2 emissions reduction objectives, the clean (so-called) electricity regulations and the 2035 EV mandate.What becomes of Canada's international 2050 Net Zero obligations?Remember it was Harper who signed Canada up to the 2050 deadline, that he was pro-coal power phase out by 2030 and that there are many centrists in the CPC who agree that our modern CO2 emissions are a form of pollution.Not only did Harper fail to create that firewall of constitutional protection that he promised for the West, but his administration also buckled and set in motion the tide-swell that Trudeau came surfing in on.I understand that in politics, effective leaders often lead from the center and at this early stage of Premier Smith's mandate, she is playing to the centre by insisting that the path to achieving the 2050 Net Zero target is Alberta's constitutional jurisdiction.But Premier Smith is arguing constitutional jurisdiction over scientific merit.Ryan Fournier, (no relation) press secretary to Alberta's Environment Minister Rebecca Shultz, confirms what Michelle Stirling of Alberta`s Friends of Science (FoS) says: The Supreme Court of Canada ruling that affirmed federal responsibility for national CO2 emissions was made without reviewing the scientific merit of the claim that humans are the primary cause of modern climate change. The Supreme Court of Canada only ruled on jurisdiction. Otherwise, all parties simply agreed that there was scientific consensus on attribution for modern climate change.For emphasis then, the provinces all agreed on the principle of scientific consensus and thus the matter became a simple matter of jurisdiction. There was no debate on scientific merit.From this position of the CSC's statement of national jurisdiction, Trudeau's administration has built his regime's uncontested central thesis of the polluter must pay and that our CO2 emissions and cow flatulence are climate pollution.When I further asked Fournier if the UCP would consider challenging the definition of CO2 as a pollutant — as they have successfully done with Trudeau's No More Pipelines Act and Single Use Plastic Ban regulations, his answer reverted to the UCP`s position on the scientific consensus of human attribution of climate change as per the definition of the UN`s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.)In other words, no.I have some sympathy with Canadian conservative leaders. The climate industrial complex is a Juggernaut. Simply look at COP28 with its nearly 100,000 attendees clamoring at the feed trough.No Conservative leader wants to be labelled a science or climate denier and as we have seen with COVID psychosis, fear is often politically paralyzing.This problem is fundamental. The solution is grassroots awakening of conservative voters to pressure their provincial representatives to legally challenge the notion of CO2 as a pollutant.I believe that even if Alberta and Saskatchewan continue to succeed in further legal battles over jurisdiction, Western Canadians and the Rest of Canada will still be on the hook for our multi-trillion-dollar 2050 Net Zero obligation.As an Alberta scientist with a background in economics and energy technology development, I view Net Zero 2030 or 2050 with equal skepticism.Based on economics alone, the 2050 Net Zero target is impossible.In my Western Standard article EV Cars will Crash the Grid, I highlighted Royal Bank of Canada warnings of pending blackouts in Ontario as early as 2026, given consumer demand is already threatening regional grid capacity. Furthermore, RBC predicts investments in the grid will have to expand by 400% relative to current levels — or more than $80 billion per year for the next 30 years, to achieve 2050 Net Zero obligations.SNC Lavalin estimates Canada will need the following power generation expansion over the next 30 years to achieve the mandated Net Zero 2050 objectives:1. 19 x Ontario`s Bruce Power nuclear power plants or2. 114 x BC Hydro`s Site C hydroelectric dam projects or3. 380 x 300 MW Small Nuclear Reactor facilities or4. 20,000 x 10 MW (name plate) windmills. Keep in mind as you read this that the Site C dam has been in the works now for more than 40 years and is still not operational or that Canada has not built a single large CANDU nuclear power plant in over a generation and Ontario`s Bruce Power nuclear plant is the second largest on the planet. We're out of practice.Furthermore, these examples do not include the tens of thousands of kilometers of high voltage transmission lines that will be required, or that most homes are not built to handle the high amperage requirements of fast EV chargers.Then there is the concept of grid infrastructure successional planning that is completely missing because arbitrary timelines are being forced on Canadians without thought to governance, technology or economic viability.In my Western Standard article Trudeau's 2035 net zero grid is all pain and no gain, I stated politically-mandated early retirement of critical grid infrastructure should be criminalized across Canada.The purposeful destruction of, or amputation of, critical components from our national life support system is the very definition of insanity that must stop. Rather, we need let facilities reach their end-of-life timelines and prudently plan to replace them with equivalent lower emission units when the technology is affordably available.Equivalent means replacing baseload with baseload or peaking power units with peaking power units.If a non-partisan intelligent succession plan is not created, our generation will be sentencing future generations to a perpetual trillion-dollar boom and bust cycle as our grid broadly reaches the end-of-life all within a short period of time.The fact that our political leaders are not aggressively educating Canadians on these facts should greatly concern us all. They do not because they are either captured by the system or afraid.I hope that these factors are part of Premier Smith`s calculus in her recent declaration that the province will be stepping in to acquire and build baseload power generation assets if necessary. Let us pray a legislative framework is built, to protect this public entity from political risks associated with future election cycles.Case in point was Rachel Notley's cancellation of long-standing power purchase agreements with Alberta power generation companies and forcing /paying them to retire our thermal baseload power plants 15 years ahead of Harper`s 2030 legislation.I passionately believe these kinds of future political risks will only go away once Canadians encourage uncensored public discourse from both sides of the argument of CO2 as a pollutant, versus an essential trace gas of life. Right now, the accelerated time scales for this transition are driven by hysteria and there is no tolerance for discourse.As a result, the cries to censor and the doxing of those who would dare question the alarmist narrative of the end is nigh extends from the highest levels of government to large corporate media and all the way down to the town square of social media.This must change.As a result of this censorship, few Canadians know the UN has openly and arrogantly boasted they own the science of climate change and that it works with Google to censor online content related to CO2 emissions and alternative hypothesis on natural attributions of climate change. This censorship is so effective that few Canadians know that every UN Environmental Program leader since 1972 has falsely predicted the end of the world to gain political influence.How is it that we have allowed those with the least credibility to undemocratically assume the reigns of power?Canadians desperately need to hear more on what the broader unbiased scientific literature has to say on the net benefits of hydrocarbons in our modern life and the massive greening effect of Planet Earth that is underway over recent decades as the climate has improved since the end of the Little Ice Age.Case in point, did you know that global deserts have been in rapid retreat over the entire Satellite Era? NASA declares that this is due to the CO2 fertilization effect, which not only improves the water efficiency of plants in more arid climates but acts to put the brakes on further planetary warming. Would Canadians buy into the idea that our CO2 emissions are pollution if they understood that best estimates show that rising CO2 concentrations are expected to accelerate global agricultural productivity to the tune of an additional $10 trillion of revenue by 2050 relative to 2012?I seriously doubt it.Yet despite these facts, the Alberta UCP and Federal CPC agree with the NDP and Liberal Parties that the UN IPCC is the gold standard on climate science.This too must change.If more Canadians were aware of these facts, I am confident that more voters would question political parties who invoke the UN IPCC as the gold standard on climate science and our provincial leaders would not have invoked the false pretense of scientific consensus when negotiating jurisdiction with the CSC.I implore the Alberta UCP to create the equivalent of the Canadian Energy Centre for non-partisan climate science discourse as it has for the Canadian oil and gas sector.
We're approaching the end of 2023. And, you have to wonder what Mr. Trudeau has in-store for Canadians in general, and the prairies in particular, for 2024. If you're concerned, so am I. But I'm also grateful, and wanting to encourage liberty-loving Canadians to learn from truckers and farmers how to be agents of change who no longer naively sit back waiting for ethical, intelligent, political leadership.In my closing Western Standard article for 2023 I argue that while liberty-loving Canadians won a few battles this year, our provincial and federal conservative leaders have barely begun to go on the offensive. Unless we as voters and citizens convey our expectations to our conservative leaders, I believe these wins will not translate to ultimate victory.We must begin thinking past the next election cycle. First, I am grateful for the Canadian truckers and farmers who stood up against the tyranny of provincial and federal COVID measures, which catalyzed the change of leadership in our federal opposition Conservative Party.Likewise, I salute the many tens of thousands more who marched, convoyed and protested in solidarity with those protesting along our southern border in Ontario and Alberta, together with those trampled at Tiananmen-Square-on-Parliament-Hill.These every day blue-collar Canadians reminded us “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”Second, I am grateful for my fellow Albertan Conservatives who, galvanized by Trudeau's use of the Emergencies [War Measures] Act, and pushed for a change of leadership within the United Conservative Party to elect Danielle Smith, with her vision of Alberta`s sovereignty within a united Canada.In retrospect, these look like coordinated acts of defiance by normally law-abiding Canadians who broke the collective COVID psychosis within our provincial governments in 2022.As a result, we now have Scott Moe with his Saskatchewan First legislation and Premier Danielle Smith's Sovereignty Act effectively giving the middle finger to Trudeau's unconstitutional plans.Third and finally, I am extremely grateful two federal courts have finally sided with the provinces.But now, a dose of reality.Let's say Canadians oust Trudeau and Singh in the next federal election. Let's say Pierre Poilievre's CPC then overturns the inflationary weather tax legislation, together with the 2030 CO2 emissions reduction objectives, the clean (so-called) electricity regulations and the 2035 EV mandate.What becomes of Canada's international 2050 Net Zero obligations?Remember it was Harper who signed Canada up to the 2050 deadline, that he was pro-coal power phase out by 2030 and that there are many centrists in the CPC who agree that our modern CO2 emissions are a form of pollution.Not only did Harper fail to create that firewall of constitutional protection that he promised for the West, but his administration also buckled and set in motion the tide-swell that Trudeau came surfing in on.I understand that in politics, effective leaders often lead from the center and at this early stage of Premier Smith's mandate, she is playing to the centre by insisting that the path to achieving the 2050 Net Zero target is Alberta's constitutional jurisdiction.But Premier Smith is arguing constitutional jurisdiction over scientific merit.Ryan Fournier, (no relation) press secretary to Alberta's Environment Minister Rebecca Shultz, confirms what Michelle Stirling of Alberta`s Friends of Science (FoS) says: The Supreme Court of Canada ruling that affirmed federal responsibility for national CO2 emissions was made without reviewing the scientific merit of the claim that humans are the primary cause of modern climate change. The Supreme Court of Canada only ruled on jurisdiction. Otherwise, all parties simply agreed that there was scientific consensus on attribution for modern climate change.For emphasis then, the provinces all agreed on the principle of scientific consensus and thus the matter became a simple matter of jurisdiction. There was no debate on scientific merit.From this position of the CSC's statement of national jurisdiction, Trudeau's administration has built his regime's uncontested central thesis of the polluter must pay and that our CO2 emissions and cow flatulence are climate pollution.When I further asked Fournier if the UCP would consider challenging the definition of CO2 as a pollutant — as they have successfully done with Trudeau's No More Pipelines Act and Single Use Plastic Ban regulations, his answer reverted to the UCP`s position on the scientific consensus of human attribution of climate change as per the definition of the UN`s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.)In other words, no.I have some sympathy with Canadian conservative leaders. The climate industrial complex is a Juggernaut. Simply look at COP28 with its nearly 100,000 attendees clamoring at the feed trough.No Conservative leader wants to be labelled a science or climate denier and as we have seen with COVID psychosis, fear is often politically paralyzing.This problem is fundamental. The solution is grassroots awakening of conservative voters to pressure their provincial representatives to legally challenge the notion of CO2 as a pollutant.I believe that even if Alberta and Saskatchewan continue to succeed in further legal battles over jurisdiction, Western Canadians and the Rest of Canada will still be on the hook for our multi-trillion-dollar 2050 Net Zero obligation.As an Alberta scientist with a background in economics and energy technology development, I view Net Zero 2030 or 2050 with equal skepticism.Based on economics alone, the 2050 Net Zero target is impossible.In my Western Standard article EV Cars will Crash the Grid, I highlighted Royal Bank of Canada warnings of pending blackouts in Ontario as early as 2026, given consumer demand is already threatening regional grid capacity. Furthermore, RBC predicts investments in the grid will have to expand by 400% relative to current levels — or more than $80 billion per year for the next 30 years, to achieve 2050 Net Zero obligations.SNC Lavalin estimates Canada will need the following power generation expansion over the next 30 years to achieve the mandated Net Zero 2050 objectives:1. 19 x Ontario`s Bruce Power nuclear power plants or2. 114 x BC Hydro`s Site C hydroelectric dam projects or3. 380 x 300 MW Small Nuclear Reactor facilities or4. 20,000 x 10 MW (name plate) windmills. Keep in mind as you read this that the Site C dam has been in the works now for more than 40 years and is still not operational or that Canada has not built a single large CANDU nuclear power plant in over a generation and Ontario`s Bruce Power nuclear plant is the second largest on the planet. We're out of practice.Furthermore, these examples do not include the tens of thousands of kilometers of high voltage transmission lines that will be required, or that most homes are not built to handle the high amperage requirements of fast EV chargers.Then there is the concept of grid infrastructure successional planning that is completely missing because arbitrary timelines are being forced on Canadians without thought to governance, technology or economic viability.In my Western Standard article Trudeau's 2035 net zero grid is all pain and no gain, I stated politically-mandated early retirement of critical grid infrastructure should be criminalized across Canada.The purposeful destruction of, or amputation of, critical components from our national life support system is the very definition of insanity that must stop. Rather, we need let facilities reach their end-of-life timelines and prudently plan to replace them with equivalent lower emission units when the technology is affordably available.Equivalent means replacing baseload with baseload or peaking power units with peaking power units.If a non-partisan intelligent succession plan is not created, our generation will be sentencing future generations to a perpetual trillion-dollar boom and bust cycle as our grid broadly reaches the end-of-life all within a short period of time.The fact that our political leaders are not aggressively educating Canadians on these facts should greatly concern us all. They do not because they are either captured by the system or afraid.I hope that these factors are part of Premier Smith`s calculus in her recent declaration that the province will be stepping in to acquire and build baseload power generation assets if necessary. Let us pray a legislative framework is built, to protect this public entity from political risks associated with future election cycles.Case in point was Rachel Notley's cancellation of long-standing power purchase agreements with Alberta power generation companies and forcing /paying them to retire our thermal baseload power plants 15 years ahead of Harper`s 2030 legislation.I passionately believe these kinds of future political risks will only go away once Canadians encourage uncensored public discourse from both sides of the argument of CO2 as a pollutant, versus an essential trace gas of life. Right now, the accelerated time scales for this transition are driven by hysteria and there is no tolerance for discourse.As a result, the cries to censor and the doxing of those who would dare question the alarmist narrative of the end is nigh extends from the highest levels of government to large corporate media and all the way down to the town square of social media.This must change.As a result of this censorship, few Canadians know the UN has openly and arrogantly boasted they own the science of climate change and that it works with Google to censor online content related to CO2 emissions and alternative hypothesis on natural attributions of climate change. This censorship is so effective that few Canadians know that every UN Environmental Program leader since 1972 has falsely predicted the end of the world to gain political influence.How is it that we have allowed those with the least credibility to undemocratically assume the reigns of power?Canadians desperately need to hear more on what the broader unbiased scientific literature has to say on the net benefits of hydrocarbons in our modern life and the massive greening effect of Planet Earth that is underway over recent decades as the climate has improved since the end of the Little Ice Age.Case in point, did you know that global deserts have been in rapid retreat over the entire Satellite Era? NASA declares that this is due to the CO2 fertilization effect, which not only improves the water efficiency of plants in more arid climates but acts to put the brakes on further planetary warming. Would Canadians buy into the idea that our CO2 emissions are pollution if they understood that best estimates show that rising CO2 concentrations are expected to accelerate global agricultural productivity to the tune of an additional $10 trillion of revenue by 2050 relative to 2012?I seriously doubt it.Yet despite these facts, the Alberta UCP and Federal CPC agree with the NDP and Liberal Parties that the UN IPCC is the gold standard on climate science.This too must change.If more Canadians were aware of these facts, I am confident that more voters would question political parties who invoke the UN IPCC as the gold standard on climate science and our provincial leaders would not have invoked the false pretense of scientific consensus when negotiating jurisdiction with the CSC.I implore the Alberta UCP to create the equivalent of the Canadian Energy Centre for non-partisan climate science discourse as it has for the Canadian oil and gas sector.
