In split decision, Supreme Court says the federal carbon price is constitutional

[Retired AF Guy]

So how water goes from solid to liquid to gas is dogma? Or how clouds are formed? Or how we know our hearts pump blood in our body or how mammals reproduce? All dogma?

I think ModlrMike was referrring to the science of climate change in particular not science in general.

 

[suffolkowner]

What is the difference between climate science and non climate science?

 

[shawn5o]

I disagree, the science is settled but the politics is not. What is a “good number”? I think the climate change deniers cling to that “good number”. Because climate change isn’t about science it’s about their politics and their feelings as someone put it, I think the science of vaccines was settled too. But a “number” of scientists disagree with that as well. Does not mean they are right.

As to Good Government, I am pretty sure it isn’t about what government is in power or what they are doing, it refers to how our system of government is set up, jurisdictions of power and the legislative, executive and judicial level and the division on power between federal and provincial. Essentially who gets to do what and how that is set up.

So if you say we have a bad gouvernement because the liberals are in power and good one under Harper that isn’t a criticism of “Good Governement”. Rather a criticism of the party in power. Because how governement works and who can do what has not really changed. So if a Westminster style constitutional monarchy is not good in your eyes I would disagree. It is one of the better forms of good government in the world.

The 25 Best Governments In The World

Governments in the world ranked according to the Legatum Institute

www.worldatlas.com

This link is not to anything that I would say is the authority on anything but demonstrates what Good Government is.

I could be wrong as this is how I understand good government. Willing to be educated if I’m wrong

Thanks Remius

I didn't word or phrase the good government thing. I believe our parliament is good and it doesn't matter which party is in power there will be naysayers. It's just that for this current government (and under Harper) scandal after scandal appears in the press. Call me jaded.

As for climate, I'm sceptical (hockey stick graph, east coast cities under water, etc.) Finally, I still hold to the view that the science isn't settled but the politics is.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What is the difference between climate science and non climate science?

One of them attracts the hot chicks/ guys and research cash

 

[Remius]

Thanks Remius

I didn't word or phrase the good government thing. I believe our parliament is good and it doesn't matter which party is in power there will be naysayers. It's just that for this current government (and under Harper) scandal after scandal appears in the press. Call me jaded.

As for climate, I'm sceptical (hockey stick graph, east coast cities under water, etc.) Finally, I still hold to the view that the science isn't settled but the politics is.

No need to thank me. I don’t disagree about the state of the current group in power. Being jaded would be and is justified. Thanks for clarifying. I’ll admit I assumed that’s what you meant but felt a definition of good government would be helpful.

I can understand why the science may not seem settled. But I think it’s far from settled politically. If it was the CPC would have accepted the inclusion of that in its last convention and policy frame work. I doubt a lot of republicans south of us agree either.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth:

A little excerpt from Scotia Bank in their newest publication that attempts to give ESG ratings to Canadian Energy and Production companies, with a bit of elucidation on the gaming of countries attempting to get to (seemingly) lower emission levels....



Oil and Gas remain vital to modern civilization.

Global primary energy consumption increased 21% from 2009 to 2019 with fossil fuels remaining the dominant sources at ~84%.

Wind and solar penetration dramatically increased over this period; however, these sources still generate less that 4% of global primary energy.

While this may suggest a significant runway for growth, we believe it also points to the serious challenges posed by transitioning away from the high density and high efficiency energy provided by fossil fuels.

Germany’s heralded ‘Energiewende’ transition has resulted in the highest consumer electricity costs in Europe (Germany's energy drive criticised over expense, risks) and concerns about supply shortfalls once the nation’s remaining nuclear reactors are shuttered.

In the midst of its transition away from fossil fuels, Europe is generating more electricity from burning wood than from wind and solar combined under the guise of biomass being a source of renewable energy (Europe’s renewable energy policy is built on burning American trees) The ‘Green Energy’ That Might Be Ruining the Planet

In our view, this is a step backward, as biomass emits more CO2 than coal per unit of energy generated. However, the choice does not necessarily have to be one of lower efficiency and (seemingly) lower emission or higher efficiency and higher emissions energy sources.

The innovations the Canadian oil and gas sector is undertaking to reduce GHG emissions across the value chain have the potential to keep Canadian energy in a prominent position even as several nations transition to lower emissions energy sources.

While there are many challenges ahead for all in energy transition, we see it more as energy evolution and believe the oil and gas industry is likely to play a vital role in actually figuring out how to make material components of global emissions abatement aspirations become a reality.

 

[Weinie]

And, BTW, most economists agree that the current tax levels are not high enough to generate the kind of response needed for Canada to meet its reduction target. The tax would have to be increased many, many folds to get there, proving once again that Canada knows that what it does in this regard makes little difference on a planetary scale - and that we will get serious about it only when the primary contributors become serious themselves.

So your first sentence conflates a global problem with a second sentence that indicates it is, after all, a regional problem with global consequences. We have little sway in this field.

What if those reduction targets are wrong? The science is not settled, regardless of the braying amongst both the apostles and the apostates, IMO.

 

[suffolkowner]

One of them attracts the hot chicks/ guys and research cash

I never saw too many hot guys wandering around Woods Hole Massachusetts but I do take your point

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and others

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth:

A little excerpt from Scotia Bank in their newest publication that attempts to give ESG ratings to Canadian Energy and Production companies, with a bit of elucidation on the gaming of countries attempting to get to (seemingly) lower emission levels....



Oil and Gas remain vital to modern civilization.

Global primary energy consumption increased 21% from 2009 to 2019 with fossil fuels remaining the dominant sources at ~84%.

Wind and solar penetration dramatically increased over this period; however, these sources still generate less that 4% of global primary energy.

While this may suggest a significant runway for growth, we believe it also points to the serious challenges posed by transitioning away from the high density and high efficiency energy provided by fossil fuels.

Germany’s heralded ‘Energiewende’ transition has resulted in the highest consumer electricity costs in Europe (Germany's energy drive criticised over expense, risks) and concerns about supply shortfalls once the nation’s remaining nuclear reactors are shuttered.

In the midst of its transition away from fossil fuels, Europe is generating more electricity from burning wood than from wind and solar combined under the guise of biomass being a source of renewable energy (Europe’s renewable energy policy is built on burning American trees) The ‘Green Energy’ That Might Be Ruining the Planet

In our view, this is a step backward, as biomass emits more CO2 than coal per unit of energy generated. However, the choice does not necessarily have to be one of lower efficiency and (seemingly) lower emission or higher efficiency and higher emissions energy sources.

The innovations the Canadian oil and gas sector is undertaking to reduce GHG emissions across the value chain have the potential to keep Canadian energy in a prominent position even as several nations transition to lower emissions energy sources.

While there are many challenges ahead for all in energy transition, we see it more as energy evolution and believe the oil and gas industry is likely to play a vital role in actually figuring out how to make material components of global emissions abatement aspirations become a reality.

I have been to Germany in recent years. Their Energiewende project, coupled with counter-intuitive decision to shutter perfectly good Nuclear Power plants has led to perverse outcomes of high usage of lignite coal to keep the lights on and the highest electricity rates in all of Europe.

To say the local ratepayers there are unhappy would be an understatement.