A study in contrasts, in the space of a week. Pembina Institute issued “Sustainable Jobs Blueprint” on July 15, 2024, claiming that while most Canadians are aware of the negative effects of climate change, fewer understand the ‘enormous opportunity the energy transition holds for Canada’s economy and its workers.’ They go on to claim some two million green jobs await Canadians with 723,000 jobs to be created by the electric vehicles market alone.From this optimistic list of EV battery and vehicle plant news of April 2024, Pembina’s jobs report came out just as waves of news headlines stated that EV manufacturers are cutting back, laying off workers and going back to ICE (internal combustion engine) production.According to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA,) Pembina Institute’s 2023 return reported that they received government funding of $1.3 million (16% of their budget.) It is fair to ask if they are a mouthpiece for government or the agendas of other funders.Two days later on July 17, 2024, the mostly foreign and government funded International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) charity issued “How Fossil Fuels Drive Inflation and Make Life Less Affordable for Canadians.” This study claims that it is not climate policy that makes life expensive, it is fossil fuels. The authors claim Canada could save $15 billion per year in total energy costs by transitioning its electricity grids to net-zero by 2050, saving most Canadian households an average of $1,500 (CAD) annually in energy costs. This purported saving is based in part on the levelized cost of electricity (LCoE) from non-reliable (a.k.a. renewable) sources being lower than from fossil fuel sources. This is disinformation, as LCoE measures cost at the generating plant boundary and therefore don’t include costs for transmission lines, back-up power generation to provide equivalent reliability and despatchability as that of fossil fuel generated power, etc. It is also obviously untrue as countries with a high proportion of unreliable power generation have higher household electricity rates (e.g., Canada $0.124/kWh, US $0.162/kWh, vs. Denmark $0.386/kWh, Germany $0.403/kWh, all in USD as of Dec 2023 per globalpetrolprices.com)Apparently, the IISD don’t think that tripling the capacity of Canada’s electrical power generation infrastructure will cost anything to anyone. It is concerning that according to the CRA, the IISD receives a lot of its funding from foreign sources.Government funding accounts for $10,179,461 (23.62%.) But of the rest, ($32 million) more than $27 million comes from foreign sources.It should be recalled that IISD issued an influential report in 2022 claiming there was no case for Canadian LNG exports, promoting hydrogen for Germany instead.Feels like financially motivated reasoning, to me.A day after IISD’s report, Fraser Institute issued “The Economic Impact and GHG Effects of the Federal Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan through 2030,” by economist and long-time climate computer model and policy analyst Ross McKitrick. McKitrick shows that the federal emissions reduction plan (ERP) will cost $5,700 per worker annually by 2030, ‘which is more than five times the cost per worker of the carbon tax.' He shows that though the ERP might reduce emissions by about 26% between 2019 and 2030, only slightly more than half of the government’s reduction targets would be met. Meantime the economy would suffer a 6% reduction in real GDP, and income per worker would decrease by 1.5% by 2030.The Fraser Institute receives no funding from the federal government.So, two government and foreign-funded ENGO ‘charities’ have made verifiably false proclamations, greenwashing the public. Where is the ‘net public benefit’ in that?Clearly, McKitrick’s analysis shows there’s no economic opportunity in decarbonizing. It just disadvantages everyone — perhaps only achieving the Marxist goal of equality of poverty.Robert Lyman, retired energy economist and former federal public servant of many years issued a series of reports earlier this year; “What are Climate Policies Costing Canada?,” Turning Taxpayers into Risktakers, and “Burdensome Ideology?” The reports find that climate policies are costing us thousands of dollars every year.But we are still saving the planet, right? Isn't this sacrifice worth it? As McKitrick points out, “global average temperatures would be reduced by only 0.0007 °Celsius (seven thousandths of a degree Celsius) as of 2100, compared to the case if Canada does nothing.”Seems like for Pembina and IISD “math is hard” — especially when it conflicts with the paymaster’s ideology. Seems like “Let’s do nothing” makes more sense.
A study in contrasts, in the space of a week. Pembina Institute issued “Sustainable Jobs Blueprint” on July 15, 2024, claiming that while most Canadians are aware of the negative effects of climate change, fewer understand the ‘enormous opportunity the energy transition holds for Canada’s economy and its workers.’ They go on to claim some two million green jobs await Canadians with 723,000 jobs to be created by the electric vehicles market alone.From this optimistic list of EV battery and vehicle plant news of April 2024, Pembina’s jobs report came out just as waves of news headlines stated that EV manufacturers are cutting back, laying off workers and going back to ICE (internal combustion engine) production.According to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA,) Pembina Institute’s 2023 return reported that they received government funding of $1.3 million (16% of their budget.) It is fair to ask if they are a mouthpiece for government or the agendas of other funders.Two days later on July 17, 2024, the mostly foreign and government funded International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) charity issued “How Fossil Fuels Drive Inflation and Make Life Less Affordable for Canadians.” This study claims that it is not climate policy that makes life expensive, it is fossil fuels. The authors claim Canada could save $15 billion per year in total energy costs by transitioning its electricity grids to net-zero by 2050, saving most Canadian households an average of $1,500 (CAD) annually in energy costs. This purported saving is based in part on the levelized cost of electricity (LCoE) from non-reliable (a.k.a. renewable) sources being lower than from fossil fuel sources. This is disinformation, as LCoE measures cost at the generating plant boundary and therefore don’t include costs for transmission lines, back-up power generation to provide equivalent reliability and despatchability as that of fossil fuel generated power, etc. It is also obviously untrue as countries with a high proportion of unreliable power generation have higher household electricity rates (e.g., Canada $0.124/kWh, US $0.162/kWh, vs. Denmark $0.386/kWh, Germany $0.403/kWh, all in USD as of Dec 2023 per globalpetrolprices.com)Apparently, the IISD don’t think that tripling the capacity of Canada’s electrical power generation infrastructure will cost anything to anyone. It is concerning that according to the CRA, the IISD receives a lot of its funding from foreign sources.Government funding accounts for $10,179,461 (23.62%.) But of the rest, ($32 million) more than $27 million comes from foreign sources.It should be recalled that IISD issued an influential report in 2022 claiming there was no case for Canadian LNG exports, promoting hydrogen for Germany instead.Feels like financially motivated reasoning, to me.A day after IISD’s report, Fraser Institute issued “The Economic Impact and GHG Effects of the Federal Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan through 2030,” by economist and long-time climate computer model and policy analyst Ross McKitrick. McKitrick shows that the federal emissions reduction plan (ERP) will cost $5,700 per worker annually by 2030, ‘which is more than five times the cost per worker of the carbon tax.' He shows that though the ERP might reduce emissions by about 26% between 2019 and 2030, only slightly more than half of the government’s reduction targets would be met. Meantime the economy would suffer a 6% reduction in real GDP, and income per worker would decrease by 1.5% by 2030.The Fraser Institute receives no funding from the federal government.So, two government and foreign-funded ENGO ‘charities’ have made verifiably false proclamations, greenwashing the public. Where is the ‘net public benefit’ in that?Clearly, McKitrick’s analysis shows there’s no economic opportunity in decarbonizing. It just disadvantages everyone — perhaps only achieving the Marxist goal of equality of poverty.Robert Lyman, retired energy economist and former federal public servant of many years issued a series of reports earlier this year; “What are Climate Policies Costing Canada?,” Turning Taxpayers into Risktakers, and “Burdensome Ideology?” The reports find that climate policies are costing us thousands of dollars every year.But we are still saving the planet, right? Isn't this sacrifice worth it? As McKitrick points out, “global average temperatures would be reduced by only 0.0007 °Celsius (seven thousandths of a degree Celsius) as of 2100, compared to the case if Canada does nothing.”Seems like for Pembina and IISD “math is hard” — especially when it conflicts with the paymaster’s ideology. Seems like “Let’s do nothing” makes more sense.
