The Canadian Election - Liberals Win Majority

[Hugor Hill]

When people decide to invest at sea level and below, that's the financial risk they take.

But yes, slightly OT.. this climate weirdness is what's driving policy so that's why I say only slightly. This platform of trying to force political changes down people's throats under the premise of environmental exaggeration and armageddon is one that doesn't resonate with me.

That's your problem. If you don't like it, ignore it.

[TOMapleLaughs]

That's not going to fit some people's political narrative. It's all humans' fault, and we must implement their wonderful Earth saving political policies that normally get laughed off.

The thing is, people will ultimately dictate political policy. It's one of the drawbacks of a free market system.

If you're not recognizing current investment, economic, and political trends toward renewable energy, and away from fossil fuels, then you're going to be left in the dust.

Divestment Campaigns Swipe $2.6 Trillion from Fossil Fuels

The power of the the people.

The power of personal sovereignty.

The power of free markets and free will.

These are the things that offer the best hope for mitigating the threat of climate change, not mandates delivered by governments that subsidize fossil fuels the largest source of man-made CO2 emissions.

The truth is, there are a number of ways the global community can act to counter fossil fuel dominance in absence of the government. One way is through fossil fuel divestment.

If you're unfamiliar with fossil fuel divestment, this was actually something that started back in 2011 by a group of climate advocates that decided to take a page out of the handbook of successful anti-war and anti-apartheid divestment campaigns from the past.

For them, there was a moral argument to be made for divesting from industries that are among the biggest sources of CO2 emissions. And so began a campaign that's grown quite rapidly over the past few years.

In fact, according to Arabella Advisors, the global fossil fuel divestment movement has topped $2.6 trillion. This is massive. Especially when you consider that just one year ago, that number was closer to $50 billion.

Much of this growth has come from faith-based communities, universities, foundations, and state and local governments. Just last month, in fact, the California General Assembly voted to divest its $476 billion public employee pension funds from companies that get at least half of their revenue from coal mining.

Whether or not you find the data and data analysis on climate change to be sound, there's no escaping the fact that fossil fuel divestment is gaining in popularity, and it is likely to continue to enjoy tremendous growth going forward.

A Renewable Energy Indicator

Now the question is, where is all this investment capital going?

More and more we're finding evidence to suggest that much is being funneled into renewable energy. As Arabella suggests, collectively, institutions committing to divest have also pledged to invest billions in climate solutions.

Those institutions and individuals that have pledged to both divest and invest in climate solutions collectively hold $785 billion in assets.

That's not chump change, and it further validates that the momentum behind renewable energy integration remains strong.

As an energy investor, it's important to look to the divestment movement as yet one more indicator of the strength of the renewable energy movement.

Love it or hate it, tomorrow's energy millionaires are today's renewable energy investors. And if you're smart, you have at least 50% of your energy portfolio dedicated to clean energy stocks. Some of my favorites right now are

SunEdison (NYSE: SUNE)

SunPower (NASDAQ: SPWR)

First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR)

Hannon Armstrong (NYSE: HASI)

SolarEdge (NASDAQ: SEDG)

And there are plenty more to come.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/another-reason-to-invest-in-renewable-energy/5117

Stating that Canada must maintain it's fossil fuel growth agenda, despite oil prices being low, projects down south like Keystone are hitting the bricks, earnings not being there, and whatever earnings do arrive tend to go to the Americans or the Chinese anyway, seems like an economic dinosaur agenda.

We can probably do better than that.

I'm tired of watching Big Oil Americans dictate our economic policy anyway. It was fine when Albertans had jerbbss I suppose. But that's evaporated and the real money didn't stay in Canada. What a failure for Canada the 'oil boom' has been.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

That's not going to fit some people's political narrative. It's all humans' fault, and we must implement their wonderful Earth saving political policies that normally get laughed off.

Nope it's canada's fault, We do produce 1.6% of the worlds Greenhouse Gas Emissions.....

http://ipolitics.ca/2014/07/18/how-clean-is-our-dirty-oil-youd-be-surprised/

Researchers for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard have recently released new data measuring the carbon intensity of various crude oil blends, including diluted bitumen (a.k.a. ‘dilbit’) and upgraded synthetic crude oil (‘SCO’) from the Canadian oilsands. The Californian findings will not be well-received by anti-oilsands activists.

Among the findings that may surprise:

• There are 13 oil fields in California, plus crude oil blends originating in at least six other countries, that generate a higher level of upstream greenhouse gas emissions than Canadian dilbit blends;

• Crude oil from Alaska’s North Slope, which makes up about 12 per cent of California’s total crude slate, is actually “dirtier” than the Canadian dilbit known as “Access Western Blend”;

• The “dirtiest oil in North America” is not produced in Canada, but just outside Los Angeles, where the Placerita oil field generates about twice the level of upstream emissions as Canadian oilsands production; and

• The title of “world’s dirtiest oil” goes to Brass crude blend from Nigeria, where the uncontrolled release of methane during the oil extraction process generates upstream GHG emissions that are over four times higher than Canadian dilbit.

What can one take away from these findings?

From the perspective of the United States, the new data should allay President Obama’s concerns about the impact of the Keystone XL pipeline on climate change and the level of U.S. and global GHG emissions. In particular, California has confirmed the State Department’s analysis that the foreign crudes that would feed Gulf Coast refineries in the absence of Canadian bitumen generate comparable (and in some cases higher) carbon emissions.

Opposing the Keystone pipeline is actually a giant ‘green herring’. About 80 per cent of the emissions attributable to a barrel of oil occur during the downstream combustion of refined fuel in a vehicle — not during the upstream production of crude oil.

From a European perspective, the data strengthens the argument that the EU’s proposed Fuel Quality Directive will discriminate against the 300,000 barrels of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel that currently exported daily from the U.S. — “clean” fuel that enables the use of new emission technologies to reduce European air pollution, but is often made from Canadian bitumen feedstock.

The discrimination occurs because the current FQD assigns an “average” value for natural bitumen feedstock of 24.7 g/MJ, and an “average” value for conventional crudes entering the EU market of 5.2. Californian researchers have determined that none of the oilsands blends generate emissions as high as the purported “average” score of 24.7 (the scores range from 16.3 to 23.8), while all of the principal conventional crudes imported by the EU score higher than their assigned “average” score of 5.2. In fact, the upstream emissions generated by the four Russian crude blends range from 9.6 to 18.3 – the latter essentially equal to Canadian dilbit.

As a result, imports of ULSD fuel from the U.S. will be penalized; Russian and African conventional crude will be able to enter the EU market with an artificially low score that eliminates any need to reduce actual GHG emissions; and European suppliers will be able toincrease the actual carbon intensity of their crude oil supply, while reducing it for FQD statistical purposes.

EU officials may revise the Fuel Quality Directive in light of such data (as well as the developments in Ukraine that raise obvious energy security concerns). However, it is highly unlikely that the activists opposing the Keystone pipeline will allow a few inconvenient facts to ruin their story.

This is unfortunate, since opposing the Keystone pipeline is actually a giant “green herring”. About 80 per cent of the emissions attributable to a barrel of oil occur during the downstream combustion of refined fuel in a vehicle – not during the upstream production of crude oil. These downstream emissions occur in equal amounts whether the fuel was made from light or heavy oil, or the crude oil was produced by conventional or unconventional methods. So concentrating on killing a single pipeline merely distracts from the real challenge – to develop the low-carbon fuels, technologies and ubiquitous systems that will be key to moving the world off oil.

[Hugor Hill]

Nope it's canada's fault, We do produce 1.6% of the worlds Greenhouse Gas Emissions.....

http://ipolitics.ca/2014/07/18/how-clean-is-our-dirty-oil-youd-be-surprised/

We have around 0.6% of the world's population. So we are producing more than 2X our share.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Anyway, back to the election.

Unsurprisingly, both Mulcair and Trudeau said they would not prop up Harper in a coalition.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/politics/not-a-snowballs-chance-in-hell-ndp-would-prop-up-tories-mulcair-says/article26496756/?cmpid=rss1

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/no-circumstances-under-which-trudeau-would-support-harper-continuing-as-prime-minister

[RUPERTKBD]

There's a whopping 100,000 people who live on an extremely low lying island you cite.

And there's 150 million in Bangladesh...

[ForsbergTheGreat]

We have around 0.6% of the world's population. So we are producing more than 2X our share.

Cool but we are also the worlds 5th biggest exporter of agriculture.

33% of the worlds canola is exported from Canada

21% of the world wheat is exported from Canada

[TOMapleLaughs]

#Mulcair in #Ottawa says #NDP would create online database of federal spending that could be searched by Canadians.

@CBCNewsAlerts

I'm not sure if true transparency with government spending can ever be attained though, but the thought is interesting. Harper also promised accountability and transparency when he first went in. So it is what it is.

[Hugor Hill]

Cool but we are also the worlds 5th biggest exporter of agriculture.

33% of the worlds canola is exported from Canada

21% of the world wheat is exported from Canada

Cool but we also have one of the lowest population density in the world.

[thejazz97]

Cool but we also have one of the lowest population density in the world.

Not if the Syrians come

[Mr. Ambien]

Not if the Syrians come

Allah will fix that.

[Hugor Hill]

And there's 150 million in Bangladesh...

The 150 million Bangladeshi don't count as people for Mr. Ambien.

[aGENT]

Cool but we are also the worlds 5th biggest exporter of agriculture.

33% of the worlds canola is exported from Canada

21% of the world wheat is exported from Canada

Canola is horrible stuff FWIW.

[TOMapleLaughs]

More on Hillary, who announced Keystone opposition yesterday. Now talking about negotiating more aggressive climate action with Canada and Mexico:

'Dirtiest fuel': Clinton makes Canadian oil an election issue

Clinton wants to follow up her opposition to Keystone with a more ambitious climate program that includes immediately launching negotiations toward what she's called the North American Climate Compact.

It's the first time a prominent U.S. politician has explicitly linked the pipeline issue to more action on climate change from Canada something President Barack Obama has never done.

It's also a significantly more aggressive plan that the current continental working group on climate change which aims to upgrade infrastructure but does not set out firm greenhouse-gas targets.

"Building a clean, secure, and affordable North American energy future is bigger than Keystone XL or any other single project. That's what I will focus on as president," said the Clinton paper.

"That's why today I am announcing a comprehensive strategy to modernize American energy infrastructure and forge a new partnership with Canada and Mexico to combat climate change across the continent...

"As president, I will immediately launch negotiations with Canada and Mexico to forge a North American Climate Compact.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/dirtiest-fuel-clinton-makes-canadian-oil-election-issue-080018331.html

[aGENT]

Well that's going to piss off Albertans

Here's hoping our incoming government doesn't f-up the 'Green boom' like they did the oil one.

[thejazz97]

Well that's going to piss off Albertans

Here's hoping our incoming government doesn't f-up the 'Green boom' like they did the oil one.

I would imagine that Alberta would become the new California. Windmills and solar panels everywhere. They'll have to start moving quickly before they lose too too much.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Canola is horrible stuff FWIW

I know where your thoughts are likely coming from but this is an election thread so lets not derail this from our differences in opinions on GMO's

[thejazz97]

The brave new world of a non-Harper Canada promised by federal opposition leaders is sure sounding a lot like the old Canada of Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau.

Consider the latest pledge by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, to reverse $115 million in cuts to the CBC, and kick in an additional $35 million a year. The CBC, as always, has been struggling to define a role for itself in a media world that is undergoing rapid, near-constant change. It’s fair to say it hasn’t been winning, as scandals diminish its prestige and rivals lure away assets such as Hockey Night in Canada. Now it knows that, should the Liberals come to office, there will be a steady stream of public money to ease the decline.

Similar reassurances have been given to Canada Post, which is the target of a campaign by a minority of Canadians to maintain door-to-door mail delivery. Two-thirds of the country already gets by with community boxes – and has for years – but some of the remainder are upset that they will have to do likewise. The cost of cancelling the switch is estimated at $250 million a year, sending the Crown corporation from a small profit to a big loss, but both Trudeau and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair say they’d cancel the switch – Mulcair permanently, Trudeau while a “review” is performed.

On Tuesday Trudeau announced he would scrap the F-35 fighter jet program and start all over, despite the impact on billions of dollars of Canadian contracts. More than 20 years ago Jean Chretien made a similar pledge, declaring he would cancel the Mulroney government’s purchase of EH-101 Cormorant helicopters to replace Canada’s decrepit Sea Kings, which even then were an outdated embarrassment. Chretien used the same justification as Trudeau – the Cormorants were too expensive, and Canada’s military could get by with something cheaper. He did cancel the deal, at a cost of $478 million in penalties, and never did pick a replacement. His successor, Paul Martin, eventually signed a contract for CH-148 Cyclones more than a decade later, but the program was yet another comedy of delays and cost overruns. The first Cyclone wasn’t delivered until this year, at triple the original cost. Being young and “progressive” means never having to learn history, I guess.

The Liberals pledge proudly that they will return Canada to years of deficit spending. It was Trudeau’s father, Pierre, who started the initial run of Canadian deficits, balancing the budget only once in 15 tries. Justin Trudeau initially promised three years of deficits, adding up to $30 billion, but is already fudging the figure. “If the situation becomes radically worse, we would revise those numbers,” he said in Toronto Monday. In other words, if running up a deficit fails to improve the economy – which isn’t suffering that much anyway – he would follow up with more deficits. That is exactly the trap earlier governments fell into, compounding the problem with new debts piled on old debts, sapping government revenue as interest costs rise. As noted by economist Don Drummond – who was hired by Ontario for advice on dealing with its own debt spiral – it’s far easier to start a borrowing program than to end one. Drummond told Canadian Press that successive governments in the 1970s and 1980s failed to adjust spending levels until Canada reached a crisis point in the 1990s and had to slash program budgets and transfers to provinces.

All the parties pledge to continue support for Canada’s expensive system of “managed trade,” which ensures high prices for eggs, poultry and dairy products by imposing protective tariffs rather than require farmers to face foreign competition, though the Conservatives are more likely to accept reforms as part of negotiations now underway for a “Trans-Pacific” trade agreement. Neither Trudeau nor Mulcair, both of whom have too many seats to risk in Quebec, is likely to support an end to the long-running protection program.

None of it sounds very “new.” Canada would withdraw from direct engagement against the barbaric Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and return to its traditional role on the sidelines, while continuing to send aid. Support for losses at the Post Office and losses at CBC. More money for Liberal-friendly arts organizations, a return to chronic deficits, millions spent on make-work programs to “create” jobs that end with the subsidies…

It doesn’t feel like we’re approaching 2016. It feels like the 1970s or 1980s, and no one has learned a thing.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-the-past-is-the-future-in-liberal-vision

[VanNuck]

If Stephen Harper is good enough for Wayne Gretzky, he's good enough for me...

Lots of folks are bashing number 99 now for supporting Harper, and honestly, I think anti-Harper voters cannot possibly go any lower. If they disagree, they should do so respectfully, but openly bashing #99 or anyone else for that matter, that shows nothing but immaturity that kindergarteners would not descend to.

[Grapefruits]

And now it's going to take years to repair the damage the 'Liberals' did. Hopefully they won't steal another election.

LOL! Hardly. If the tree huggers could get out of the way of progress we could actually be a lot better off than we actually are. Though we are in a pretty good position compared to the rest of Canada. I still remember what BC was like under the NDP. Not a fan of the NDP Federally either. If I really wanted to take a pay cut I'd vote NDP, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.