Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy

[Edward Campbell]

In my opinion, this report from the Ottawa Citizen is another foreign policy fail for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

    "PARIS – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plans to meet with India’s prime minister on Sunday at the Paris climate conference to try to persuade him to get on board with the rest of the world on an ambitious plan to reduce
      greenhouse gas emissions.
      ...
      India and its population of more than one billion people is one of the world’s largest emitters, but it remains one of the countries that has been balking at hard emissions caps or absolute reductions ahead of the Paris conference
      because it’s worried about crippling its growing economy."

India is still in the process of moving from this ...

                       

and this:

                              ... to this:

                                         

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is appearing to ask Indians to stop progressing so that we, in the rich, industrialized West need not pay the full price for climate change ... assuming that human industrial activity is, indeed, the primary driver. Of course, that not what he is asking ... but that's how it will look in Asia. Canada will look like it wants India to pay for our past mistakes. I'm not sure what the right answer is to all this climate change business, but I'm pretty sure that asking China and India to forgo the sort of "powered" lifestyle we take for granted cannot and will not be part of it.

 

[Good2Golf]

Mr. Campbell, respectfully, I think there is a difference between "forego" and 'accept that while developing, your country has to consider that climatic responsibility is an aspect of a developed country's responsibility' and that both India and China cannot play both sides of the issue (we're still developing, we shouldn't bear the same burden -- we are developed, respect us).

I don't think that Canada is playing the 'tough guy on the block' here, Canada has recently committed to greater engagement in climate issues, and so could be seen in a "we're getting better on the issue, so too should you [India/China].

Regards,
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

Mr. Campbell, respectfully, I think there is a difference between "forego" and 'accept that while developing, your country has to consider that climatic responsibility is an aspect of a developed country's responsibility' and that both India and China cannot play both sides of the issue (we're still developing, we shouldn't bear the same burden -- we are developed, respect us).

I don't think that Canada is playing the 'tough guy on the block' here, Canada has recently committed to greater engagement in climate issues, and so could be seen in a "we're getting better on the issue, so too should you [India/China].

Regards,
G2G

G2G

From a map ERC reproduced on the PMJT - 100 days thread.

A problem that JT has is that Canada has already out performed all of its Kyoto, Copenhagen and Rio signing brethren. - And that with that eco-dinosaur (NB Humour Attempt) Harper in charge.

Canada is down 9.5% on emissions beating everybody in the Americas (North and South), everybody in Europe, Japan and Australia and Russia.  And working against the trend of the Middle East, Africa and all parts of Asia except Japan and Taiwan.

Canada's success has come not from government policy but from business investing in new plants with new processes and new equipment that are more efficient and increase profits.  This is most evident in the oilsands directly but is also evident in supporting industries like manufacturing, railway and road transportation. 



http://army.ca/forums/threads/120785.175.html

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mr. Campbell, respectfully, I think there is a difference between "forego" and 'accept that while developing, your country has to consider that climatic responsibility is an aspect of a developed country's responsibility' and that both India and China cannot play both sides of the issue (we're still developing, we shouldn't bear the same burden -- we are developed, respect us).

I don't think that Canada is playing the 'tough guy on the block' here, Canada has recently committed to greater engagement in climate issues, and so could be seen in a "we're getting better on the issue, so too should you [India/China].

Regards,
G2G

That is precisely the card prime Minister Modi played, today, in Paris ~ sorry, I lost the link and I'm too lazy to go search ~ when he said something like: we want to help but the higher priority must be that we continue to industrialize at a rapid rate because we need to lift millions out of poverty ~ he means as many millions as there are (rich and poor alike) in America and Europe combined, by the way.

India, especially is playing "catch up" with China which, given its abundant coal supplies is ten to twenty years ahead in rural electrification.

Anyway, why should Modi agree to anything? China will not sign on to much of anything in the way of binding targets or quotas, neither will America ... who cares what Canada says and does?

But, take a look at this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/world-insider/beijings-crazy-bad-smog-cloud-could-have-a-silver-lining/article27525738/

Beijing’s ‘crazy bad’ smog cloud could have a silver lining

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Nathan VanderkKlippe
BEIJING — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Nov. 30, 2015

When engineers were building the system that tweeted air-quality updates from the U.S. embassy in Beijing, they never expected it to hit 500, a number so far into the “hazardous” zone that it seemed apocalyptic.

So they set “crazy bad” as the automated description for an air-quality index of 500 and above.


It was a joke. They never expected it to happen – and could never have fathomed that those two words might help spur a radical new willingness in China to fight global warming.

In photos: Beijing chokes on smog as Paris climate talks begin

Then in 2010, the joke made global headlines when it suddenly appeared on Twitter, bearing the official imprimatur of the U.S. government. It was quickly deleted and replaced with “beyond index.”

It has since reappeared with depressing regularity – including on Monday, when by 9 p.m. the average Beijing air-quality index had reached 611. Southwest of the city it touched 938. Authorities halted construction work, shut down some factories and closed freeways. Schools cancelled classes.

The smothering blanket of air rendered the sun a dull orange and provided an ugly backdrop to the start of the Paris climate talks, where Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to lead a delegation eager to build consensus for strong new measures against global warming.

It’s a remarkable shift from earlier climate talks – such as those in 2009 that Beijing was accused of sabotaging.

The following year, the “crazy bad” air arrived.

Smog and climate change are in some ways different problems. Scrubbers can filter particulates from smokestacks and improve air quality. They don’t do the same for carbon dioxide emissions.

But in China, both have a common source – the profligate burning of coal – and the country’s fouled air, land and water tend to be lumped together as common byproducts of an era that prioritized economic growth above all else. The problem has grown so severe, and public awareness so acute (stoked in no small part by the U.S. embassy air-quality figures), that China’s leadership has declared war on pollution.

Every day, China’s choking smog kills 4,000 people.

But it may hold one of the keys to fighting climate change, in part because it’s so easy to see. It can be hard to visualize a slow-moving climate phenomenon. When the smog gets bad in China, the air itself is visible.

It’s an unambiguous symbol of the need for change, and it’s an important part of the reason China, now the world’s largest carbon emitter, has committed to a hard cap on its emissions by 2030. Beijing is now working to convince the rest of the world to agree to something similar.

A capital city smothered in noxious air is hardly the image China’s leadership wants as it arrives in Paris. But for world leaders in search of a climate deal, there might be a little good in “crazy bad.”

I have long maintained that "global climate change" is not a 'good' political issue ~ the merits of the case don't matter: it is too abstract, too far away, too frightening and too expensive.

Killer smog and pollution, on the other hand, are 'good' issues: people can see, smell and taste them and they can relate, directly to them.

Some of the answers may be politically sensitive: like allowing Chinese companies to buy up Canadian uranium mines to meet what will, of necessity, be an urgent demand for nuclear power in the not too distant future.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

That is precisely the card prime Minister Modi played, today, in Paris ~ sorry, I lost the link and I'm too lazy to go search ~ when he said something like: we want to help but the higher priority must be that we continue to industrialize at a rapid rate because we need to lift millions out of poverty ~ he means as many millions as there are (rich and poor alike) in America and Europe combined, by the way.

India, especially is playing "catch up" with China which, given its abundant coal supplies is ten to twenty years ahead in rural electrification.

Anyway, why should Modi agree to anything? China will not sign on to much of anything in the way of binding targets or quotas, neither will America ... who cares what Canada says and does?

But, take a look at this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/world-insider/beijings-crazy-bad-smog-cloud-could-have-a-silver-lining/article27525738/

I have long maintained that "global climate change" is not a 'good' political issue ~ the merits of the case don't matter: it is too abstract, too far away, too frightening and too expensive.

Killer smog and pollution, on the other hand, are 'good' issues: people can see, smell and taste them and they can relate, directly to them.

Some of the answers may be politically sensitive: like allowing Chinese companies to buy up Canadian uranium mines to meet what will, of necessity, be an urgent demand for nuclear power in the not too distant future.

Technology to burn coal cleanly is there already, it's just expensive and will require higher electric bills.  The goal in China should be to guide them towards using scrubbing technology already available.  I wonder how many Chinese coal plants have precipitators or FGDs?  Or are they all firing on 1950s technology?

The only other option is Nuclear as their energy needs are too great for the economically unsustainable green technology we've hitched ourselves to.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Technology to burn coal cleanly is there already, it's just expensive and will require higher electric bills.  The goal in China should be to guide them towards using scrubbing technology already available.  I wonder how many Chinese coal plants have precipitators or FGDs?  Or are they all firing on 1950s technology?

The only other option is Nuclear as their energy needs are too great for the economically unsustainable green technology we've hitched ourselves to.

Is this what you mean?


How "clean" is clean enough? Is any level of "clean coal" acceptable to the climate activists?

China can pay a huge price, doesn't want to, but can ... and people ~ ordinary people ~ in Beijing are starting to get restless, I think.

India cannot pay ... I have this from 2013: India's total primary energy consumption from crude oil (29.45%), natural gas (7.7%), coal (54.5%), nuclear energy (1.26%), hydro electricity (5.0%), wind power, biomass electricity and solar power is 595 Mtoe.

India needs to shift from coal to nuclear, to avoid the mess China now faces, but that's expensive, too.

 

[a_majoor]

If we had serious people working the problem rather than virtue signalling, then the Canadian response would be to sell as many Canadian nuclear reactors to India as possible (along with 20 year contracts for Uranium supply) to boost India's electrical output, raise millions out of poverty, establish trading relationships with Canada to a large, regional Anglosphere power and give us a new partner in an increasingly complex and hostile world.

Perhaps someday the Liberal Government will be "ready"; they only had over two years to prepare for this day....

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Is this what you mean?


How "clean" is clean enough? Is any level of "clean coal" acceptable to the climate activists?

China can pay a huge price, doesn't want to, but can ... and people ~ ordinary people ~ in Beijing are starting to get restless, I think.

India cannot pay ... I have this from 2013: India's total primary energy consumption from crude oil (29.45%), natural gas (7.7%), coal (54.5%), nuclear energy (1.26%), hydro electricity (5.0%), wind power, biomass electricity and solar power is 595 Mtoe.

India needs to shift from coal to nuclear, to avoid the mess China now faces, but that's expensive, too.

Disclaimer,

Before I decided to pursue a career in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, I worked as a coal handler for the New Brunswick Power Corporation, so lets just say I know a thing or two about making power with Coal  ;D.  If I hadn't decided on a military career I would have definitely pursued a career in Power Engineering and I may yet do so.

If they want to lower the amount of emissions produced from Coal-burning there are a number of things they could do:

1.  Use a higher quality coal as their fuel.  Not all coal is created equally, and some burns cleaner than others.  They should also stop combining coal with other fuels (petroleum coke for instance).  A lot of companies do this as a way to save money but it's terrible for the environment.

2.  Use a number of different technologies to improve their processes: electrostatic precipitation, flue gas desulfurization/decarbonation, etc...

3.  Improve the efficiency of their other systems i.e. build a better boiler system so you use less coal/fuel to generate the same amount of heat/steam.  Efficiency is a big thing, some of the most modern plants only really get around 34-35% fuel efficiency (meaning they only harness 34% of the total energy of the fuel they are using).

The process behind making electricity with fossil fuels is quite simple.  You pump water through a boiler, the boiler is heated using (insert whatever fossil fuel here), the heat generated from the boiler turns the water in to high pressure steam that is used to spin a turbine that generates electricity.  Want to really reduce carbon emissions?  Attack the disease, not the symptom and build a better boiler system!

If we had serious people working the problem rather than virtue signalling, then the Canadian response would be to sell as many Canadian nuclear reactors to India as possible (along with 20 year contracts for Uranium supply) to boost India's electrical output, raise millions out of poverty, establish trading relationships with Canada to a large, regional Anglosphere power and give us a new partner in an increasingly complex and hostile world.

Perhaps someday the Liberal Government will be "ready"; they only had over two years to prepare for this day....

This is what happens when you let lawyers and political "scientists" make decisions that are best left to engineers and real scientists  :nod:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Disclaimer,

Before I decided to pursue a career in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, I worked as a coal-handler for the New Brunswick Power Corporation, so lets just say I know a thing or two about making power with Coal  ;D.  If I hadn't decided on a military career I would have definitely pursued a career in Power Engineering and I may yet do so.

If they want to lower the amount of emissions produced from Coal-burning there are a number of things they could do:

1.  Use a higher quality coal as their fuel.  Not all coal is created equally, and some burns cleaner than others.  They should also stop combining coal with other fuels (petroleum coke for instance).  A lot of companies do this as a way to save money but it's terrible for the environment.

2.  Use a number of different technologies to improve their processes: electrostatic precipitation, flue gas desulfurization/decarbonation, etc...

3.  Improve the efficiency of their other systems i.e. build a better boiler system so you use less coal/fuel to generate the same amount of heat/steam.  Efficiency is a big thing, some of the most modern plants only really get around 34-35% fuel efficieny (meaning they only harness 34% of the total energy of the fuel they are using).

The process behind making electricity with fossil fuels is quite simple.  You pump water through a boiler, the boiler is heated using (insert whatever fossil fuel here), the heat generated from the boiler turns the water in to high pressure steam that is used to spin a turbine that generates electricity.  Want to really reduce carbon emissions?  Attack the disease, not the symptom and build a better boiler system!

I was in Datong, in China's Shanxi Province, where one of China's larger coal mines is located. The production is impressive, to say the least, and so are the side effects: there is coal dust everywhere, it is all pervasive ... and it will be for generations, even after the mines are closed. Over 35 years ago I was stationed in the Netherlands, at AFCENT HQ in Brunssum. We had a lovely home in an idyllic little town called Hoensbroek ... the only thing was that every morning we had to wipe the coal dust off our white lawn furniture, there were little black spots (coal dust in the dew) everywhere and that was more than 20 years after the Dutch coal mines had all closed! I'm told that now, over 60 years, two generations, since the mines closed the coal dust still covers everything.

I am somewhat skeptical about "clean coal," despite its promise.

I'm not arguing against it ... I'm just unsure if 'clean coal" is not, perhaps, an oxymoron.

But, if it can be made to work at reasonable costs then the social benefits ~ jobs ~ of mining and using coal are enormous.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I was in Datong, in China's Shanxi Province, where one of China's larger coal mines is located. The production is impressive, to say the least, and so are the side effects: there is coal dust everywhere, it is all pervasive ... and it will be for generations, even after the mines are closed. Over 35 years ago I was stationed in the Netherlands, at AFCENT HQ in Brunssum. We had a lovely home in an idyllic little town called Hoensbroek ... the only thing was that every morning we had to wipe the coal dust off our white lawn furniture, there were little black spots (coal dust in the dew) everywhere and that was more than 20 years after the Dutch coal mines had all closed! I'm told that now, over 60 years, two generations, since the mines closed the coal dust still covers everything.

I am somewhat skeptical about "clean coal," despite its promise.

I'm not arguing against it ... I'm just unsure if 'clean coal" is not, perhaps, an oxymoron.

But, if it can be made to work at reasonable costs then the social benefits ~ jobs ~ of mining and using coal are enormous.

Coal Mining is dirty, no question, but so is uranium mining or any other mining for that matter.  When I say "clean coal" though, what I mean is a coal that burns better.  Think about it like a camp fire.  If I throw a bunch of softwood in to a fire, it's going to burn very hot but the wood is going to burn very quickly which means I will end up having to use a tonne of wood to keep the fire going.  Compare this to if I were to burn a hardwood, hardwood burns for a long time and once the fire is going, it stays very consistent.

The same principle applies when burning fossil fuels.  If you use a crappy source of coal, oil, natural gas, etc... you will need to burn more of the stuff to generate the same amount of energy which drastically increases the amount of emissions you generate.  You need to use a higher quality fuel supply or find a way to improve your boiler's ability to trap heat.

China is the industrial bread basket of the world and heavy industry has a huge energy requirement.  Fossil Fuels and Nuclear are the only real economically feasible options to meet that requirement, unless you're Canada and have an abundance of uninhabitable land and water for hydro-electric projects.

 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks, HB, so there is "hard" (cleaner burning) and "soft" (dirty) coal .. is that right?

Which does China have in such abundance? (Two of the world's largest coal mines are in Inner Mongolia.) What about Alberta?

 

[Old Sweat]

Thanks, HB, so there is "hard" (cleaner burning) and "soft" (dirty) coal .. is that right?

We were taught the difference between types of coal with some explanation re what was mined where, but that was back in public school circa 1950-1952. Anthracite, or hard coal, produced more heat per ton and less pollution than its soft counterpart, which, however, was cheaper. This was at just about the time London, England was hit with a massive "smog" bank that killed a lot of people and pretty well shut down the city. It was attributed to the near universal use of soft coal for heating in the UK, along with the presence of a longterm low pressure system that settled on the British Isles.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/case-studies/great-smog

 

[a_majoor]

One thing about using any thermal cycle for energy generation is you run up against "Carnot's theorem", which essentially places a hard cap on the amount of energy that can be extracted by a thermal process. In rough terms, this means that most engines, boilers etc. can generally only extract @ 33% of the energy from the fuel. This limit is somewhat flexible, if you add other stages to the process (essentially adding another "Carnot cycle" to extract some of the left over heat energy), but there are cost and practical limits to what can be done to extract more energy.

Batteries and fuel cells are not limited by the Carnot theorem, since they are electrochemical systems, but since the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels is 20-25X that of even the most advanced batteries, we will be seeing hydrocarbons and coal in service for a long time to come. If it were somehow possible to use coal directly in a fuel cell, then you would see much higher conversion efficiencies.

Since we want to stay warm and ensure Canadians are not living in poverty, then *we* need to embrace mature, low cost energy sources, of which coal is number one in terms of energy density, versatility (you can build a coal plant anywhere) and cost, and not try to punish other people who are doing the same. Yes, coal is dirty and has lots of issues, but then freezing in the dark is not an acceptable COA either....

 

[GAP]

If they used the basic Geothermal initial heating, THEN used supplementry heat eg: coal, gas, etc.....then the overall used would reduce.

There was an article a long while back about using exchangers ("Carnot theorem"? ) in the stacks, to the point the boiler was up over 60% effective....

 

[Good2Golf]

...India needs to shift from coal to nuclear, to avoid the mess China now faces, but that's expensive, too.

Well, we did give them a Chalk River-like breeder in the 50's and CANDU 200's in the 60's, so it's not like we weren't helping them. 

Well played by PM Modi to put the 'helping escape the binds of poverty' flavour on putting emissions controls off for his grand children to deal with.

Regards
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

We were taught the difference between types of coal with some explanation re what was mined where, but that was back in public school circa 1950-1952. Anthracite, or hard coal, produced more heat per ton and less pollution than its soft counterpart, which, however, was cheaper. This was at just about the time London, England was hit with a massive "smog" bank that killed a lot of people and pretty well shut down the city. It was attributed to the near universal use of soft coal for heating in the UK, along with the presence of a longterm low pressure system that settled on the British Isles.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/case-studies/great-smog

Actually, as a resident of those London Fogs, remembered fondly (I still enjoy the smell of diesel fumes and soot), the issue in London was never about Hard Coal (Anthracite) versus Soft Coal (any grade down to and including lignite or Brown Coal).

No British boiler man would have tolerated Brown Coal in his boilers - far too much water and tar.  That is the stuff that is used to fire Saskatchewan and German coal plants.  British power plants were fired by various grades of Anthracite mined in the North of England and the South of Scotland.  They were marginally poorer than the Pennsylvania coals.

The problem in London was just the sheer volume of coal fires.  Take a look at an English city scape and count the chimney pots.  Everyone of those had a fire place attached - one per room.  All of them burning coal inefficiently.

The problem was partly solved by converting people from coal to coke, created as a co-product with coal gas from coal.  The real solution came with the electric heater.

Even now, to my knowledge, central heating is a minority solution in the UK.

Centralizing the burning of coal so that the burning can be managed efficiently and the wastes/byproducts also managed is a perfectly feasible solution.

Steam technology really is the heart of the heat and power industry - whether it is coal, diesel, gas, uranium or geo-thermal that is the primary heat source.  The one industry that hasn't figured that out yet is the renewable industry. 

You can also boil water with windmills and solar panels - and you can store that energy as hot water under pressure - just like geothermal energy.

If I am going to be stuck with these ruddy windmills cluttering up my sightlines and killing birds then for gawdsake somebody make them worthwhile and attach them to a proper steam plant and create a renewable geothermal facility.

Aaargh - nudder sore point found.

 

[Kirkhill]

One thing about using any thermal cycle for energy generation is you run up against "Carnot's theorem", which essentially places a hard cap on the amount of energy that can be extracted by a thermal process. In rough terms, this means that most engines, boilers etc. can generally only extract @ 33% of the energy from the fuel. ....

With respect:

Boiler efficiencies typically run in the 85% range for carbon fuel boilers and >95% for electrically fired boilers.

The 33% applies to converting thermal energy into motion.  Diesel engines for example.

If you give me a supply of hot water under high pressure from any source, I can find a turbine that will use the steam generated when the hot water goes from the high pressure source to low pressure.  And I will find a use for the low grade heat in the water after it has condensed in the low pressure zone.  That water can be recycled and reheated to create high pressure hot water by any fuel known to man - including by turning a windmill into a simple boiler by taking the electrical wires from the generator on top of the mast and attaching them at the bottom of the mast to either a resistance coil, or even just a couple of electrodes, immersed in a closed container of water.

This stuff isn't rocket science - it is just that most folks seem to have forgotten who the Watt was named for.

Wind to turbine - 25% efficient
Turbine to electricity - 95% efficient
Electricity to boiler - 95% efficient
District electric CHP plant - 70 to 90% efficient.

You could just as easily find the heat by burning the coal in-situ and leaving all the carbon underground.

http://swanhills-synfuels.com/  - insitu coal gasification
https://www.google.com/patents/US3379248 - insitu coal combustion

 

[Edward Campbell]

Canada's new, Liberal Foreign Policy is rather neatly summed up by Rick McKee in the Augusta Chronicle:

         

          Source: http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/cartoons/2015-11-19/rick-mckee-editorial-cartoon-0

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think the Liberals, but also the Conservatives and the NDP and their confrères across the political spectra from Australia to Zambia, have missed the foreign policy boat ... it isn't climate change, although that's one driver, nor is it terrorism, although that, too, is a driver, it is the prospect of another historic, world changing, great migration.

The migrants are going to come, in HUGE numbers, from the world's 75 or so poorest and most vulnerable countries ~ from the Central African Republic, which is at the bottom of everyone's list through to, say, Fiji, which might suffer a lot from climate change ~ and they are going to aim to settle in the 30 or so richest and most liberal places like Luxembourg, Norway, the USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Czech Republic.

The people in the 75 'worst off' countries are, overwhelmingly, poor, dark skinned, culturally unsophisticated (to put it mildly), poorly educated and willing and able to work hard. They are not, by and large, Muslim, although some are. Some, perhaps many will have socio-cultural customs that range from strange, to us, to abhorrent. (Female genital mutilation and "honour killings," for example, are not, by and large, Muslims things: they are African and (sometimes) Asian customs that transcend religions.)

Dealing with climate issues might offer some very temporary, stop gap "relief" to a few countries ~ but famines are more likely to be caused by bad governments than bad climates. But, I suspect that the 100,000 people in small, poor (162 of 185 on the World Bank's list (where 185 is the poorest)), low lying Kiribati are going to need resettlement when the sea levels rise ...

             

Dealing with terrorism and despots might help stem the tide of refugees from some countries, but we need to be clear that many so-called political refugees seeking protection from wars and insurrections are, in reality, just ordinary people who have had enough, who have given up on Afghanistan and Benin and Chad and Djibouti and so on ... and want to come to Australia and Belgium and Canada and start again.

In the past 50 years the US led West has focused on, first, dealing with the USSR, and, now, dealing with the Middle East. In the process we, the West, have given China nearly carte blanche in Africa which is a treasure house of resources and wealth that we all need.

In the next 25 years China and India will add another 750 million people (about the entire populations of North America and the EU, combined) into the global "middle class." Those people will want to consume resources. Who will control the resources? Australia and Canada and the USA are well positioned, ditto Brazil and some other South American countries, but Africa is the mother lode.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920