Federal Government & Politics II

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Norway is investing wisely in a future that doesn't rely on oil, and the amount of oil produced has fallen by 40% over 20 years. Canada has doubled production in the same 20 years - we now put over three times as much oil into the world to burn as Norway. (Canada's commercial fisheries are worth more than Norway's too).

How much of that fall was due to the depletion of easily extracted fields? Now as other have pointed out, Norway's investment in oil is on the upswing. It's easy to be virtuous at home when you can spend the money you got peddling oil abroad.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Sorry I don't buy the blame the corporations for the ubiquitous SUV and trucks. While they are more profitable so sure there is some push but the consumer leads on this. You can buy a Kia Soul if you need to get groceries they have lots on the lot waiting to be purchased. EVs have higher inventory levels than ICE cars right now and by a lot. Sure some is crazy products like the F-150 Lightning but the Nissan Leaf is certainly available if you want to buy a lawnmower that is electric and pay $10k more than a Nissan Versa. Tesla doesn't keep inventory per se but the waiting lists have evaporated despite price cuts.

I really have to give it to you. Your ability to be completely myopic to trends beyond 6 months is pretty amazing. Were you a daytrader?

I don't know if things have changed much, but EV wait times were still long in September in Canada. The consistently longer EV wait times in Canada were what ultimately convinced the government they needed to line up the mandates with California and New York.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

True but Norway is really more dependent on oil than Canada, hence the hypocrisy. Herring only buys you so many EVs.

Economically dependent yes.

I don't get the hypocrisy argument though. They aren't just pursuing green transport as some virtue signaling thing. It's part of an honest effort to reduce emissions where they can, without harming their economy. They are also going all out to diversify their economy. They have plenty of hydro. And now their national oil company is going hard into offshore wind development using the same skillset used to build oil rigs.

At the end of the day whether oil declines in our lifetime or the next, Norway will be left much better off than us. They'll have banked all that oil wealth and have a much more transitioned economy. By contrast, Alberta's sovereign wealth fund doesn't even cover a substantial fraction of its orphan well liability. And as a country, we've obviously saved nothing. And we consistently bristle at the very idea of transitioning economically.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

"Build nuclear" sounds like a great idea but it's one that's not as realistic as "build solar" or "build wind", both of which are cheaper, quicker, and don't face nearly the regulatory hurdles.

The link below is from the IESO and shows where Ontario's electricity supply is coming from in real time (when you open the link click on supply). The big orange block is nuclear. Literally half of Ontario's power comes from nuclear. The small orange sliver at the very top is solar - at the time of writing this post, solar is supplying approx 1% of Ontario's total power. Wind is supplying maybe 5%. This is despite all the acres upon acres of land already being dedicated to wind and solar.

https://www.ieso.ca/power-data

Solar and wind are good technologies for certain applications, but it can't be relied on year round. When it comes to "realistic" solutions, speed, cost and lack of regulatory issues are nice, but those factors don't trump the "does it work" factor. Solar only works if you have the ability to store 5 days worth of power in the winter (in Northern climates), which is incredibly expensive. And both solar and wind take up an incredible amount of land for the amount of electricity that it generates.

Nuclear on the other hand is a proven technology, is zero emissions, and very safe. Yes it takes longer to build, costs more, and there's more hoops to jump through. But it is also the best technology humanity currently has for zero emissions electricity generation. And once its built, it lasts for over 50 years. It is also the most energy dense type of power plant we can build (kW/sqft).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Economically dependent yes.

I don't get the hypocrisy argument though. They aren't just pursuing green transport as some virtue signaling thing. It's part of an honest effort to reduce emissions where they can, without harming their economy. They are also going all out to diversify their economy. They have plenty of hydro. And now their national oil company is going hard into offshore wind development using the same skillset used to build oil rigs.

At the end of the day whether oil declines in our lifetime or the next, Norway will be left much better off than us. They'll have banked all that oil wealth and have a much more transitioned economy. By contrast, Alberta's sovereign wealth fund doesn't even cover a substantial fraction of its orphan well liability. And as a country, we've obviously saved nothing. And we consistently bristle at the very idea of transitioning economically.

I honestly don't understand all of the blind passionate support for Big Oil and hostility to the electric transition both here on SSP and elsewhere in various forums. Are there really that many people whose personal fortunes are inextricably tied to the legacy oil and gas sector?

I sort of get people directly involved with the Alberta oil patch but we even have these anti-electric types in Quebec of all places where that sector is marginal.

Ultimately, I don't really care what powers my transportation or heats my house, as long as I can get around as I please and stay warm. If it costs about the same and is just as practical plus has the bonus of polluting the planet less, then why would a logical person be opposed?

Is there perhaps something essential in all of our retirement funds that is directly linked to Big Oil's fortunes? Maybe I need to check some documents in my filing cabinet.

Other than that, I just don't get it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Economically dependent yes.

I don't get the hypocrisy argument though. They aren't just pursuing green transport as some virtue signaling thing. It's part of an honest effort to reduce emissions where they can, without harming their economy. They are also going all out to diversify their economy. They have plenty of hydro. And now their national oil company is going hard into offshore wind development using the same skillset used to build oil rigs.

At the end of the day whether oil declines in our lifetime or the next, Norway will be left much better off than us. They'll have banked all that oil wealth and have a much more transitioned economy. By contrast, Alberta's sovereign wealth fund doesn't even cover a substantial fraction of its orphan well liability. And as a country, we've obviously saved nothing. And we consistently bristle at the very idea of transitioning economically.

Yes, no question Norway has done a better job managing their oil wealth and creating a legacy. Though it is easier to do when you're a smaller country of just 5,4 million people. You can certainly see why Albertans feel they might do better on their own.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In a lot of domains we don't have a technology problem. We have an adoption problem. And government intervention absolutely helps.

90% of the public doesn't need full size gas/diesel pickups and SUVs to get groceries from Costco every weekend. But automakers sell them those vehicles because those are the most profitable products for automakers. Tell the automakers they have to sell 20% of their customers BEVs and PHEVs and either they'll market some customers towards BEV/PHEV cars to keep sales up or they'll accept lower margins and make EV pickups and SUVs.

And given that this mandate lines up with the timelines of nine large American states that are close to half the US auto market, this intervention is effectively market making for EVs that speeds adoption along and pushes further cost declines. But of course, absolutists as usual will fight and fearmonger on each every regulation cause it's not about tech or climate change anymore. But apparently all about culture wars.

Honestly, as an engineer who has actually taken some cleantech courses at the graduate level, half the time when I hear, "We need better tech...", I know what will follow is technologically illiterate politically motivated screed. Most people have no idea how far along the tech is, how much is being built and deployed, and that the big issues are usually scalability and markets (which drive reinforcing cycles), not the tech itself. "We need better tech," is just a stalling tactic now. And not one that anybody with the slightest amount of knowledge doesn't see through.

Consumers drive the market. Corporations respond to the market.

Yes SUVs and trucks are more profitable, as a more expensive product should be. However it is the consumers who are demanding these products, and the corporations are simply fulfilling a demand.

Canadians (and Americans) have a higher car ownership rate than Europeans, and the average distance each vehicle drives per year is more than double what the average European car does per year.

It's a lot easier to easier to own an EV if you don't need to drive very often. However if your lifestyle requires you to do 50k a year, which PLENTY of professions require, then the 30+ minutes it takes to charge an EV won't cut it, since you'll be doing it so often. For contractor who need to drive a light-duty truck or van (with the battery therefore being twice as large), this becomes over an hour that they have to sit and wait for the vehicle to charge. Multiplied by 2 guys in a truck, that is $200 of lost potential revenue where they're waiting for the vehicle to charge.

EVs are the future, and the adoption is going to happen regardless, but government forcing it down peoples' throats before they are ready for it at an individual level is only going to result in unintended consequences.

In 2 years from now, car ownership is going to become very expensive for people who aren't able to buy electric vehicles yet.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, no question Norway has done a better job managing their oil wealth and creating a legacy. Though it is easier to do when you're a smaller country of just 5,4 million people. You can certainly see why Albertans feel they might do better on their own.

Is there any reliable info that demonstrates that Alberta's depletion of the
Heritage Fund was in any way related to its membership in Canada?

It was built up when Alberta was part of Canada (and equalization for example also existed back then), and it was depleted under the same conditions that didn't really change.

(Not saying that Alberta hypothetically might or might not do better outside Canada, but in terms of maintaining the Heritage Fund at high levels, I'd have to know more as it doesn't appear to be obviously true.)

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I honestly don't understand all of the blind passionate support for Big Oil and hostility to the electric transition both here on SSP and elsewhere in various forums. Are there really that many people whose personal fortunes are inextricably tied to the legacy oil and gas sector?

I sort of get people directly involved with the Alberta oil patch but we even have these anti-electric types in Quebec of all places where that sector is marginal.

Ultimately, I don't really care what powers my transportation or heats my house, as long as I can get around as I please and stay warm. If it costs about the same and is just as practical plus has the bonus of polluting the planet less, then why would a logical person be opposed?

Is there perhaps something essential in all of our retirement funds that is directly linked to Big Oil's fortunes? Maybe I need to check some documents in my filing cabinet.

Other than that, I just don't get it.

Not blind loyalty. But everyone in Canada would be materially and noticeably poorer if we snapped are fingers and did away with the O&G industry. The CCB benefits keeping the children on the North Shore in Quebec in diapers or paying for the rural Nova Scotia seniors dental work for the first time are all in part paid by the revenues of the sector. Theoretical history is always tough but our incomes are lower by some level from having a hostile Liberal government though the previous overly ideological and allergic to government solutions government before them didn't get a pipeline built nor deal with the issues that scare away investment in Canada either.

I live in Ottawa and to me it's like the small business owners who hate the public service. Why bite the hand that feeds you.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Sorry I don't buy the blame the corporations for the ubiquitous SUV and trucks. While they are more profitable so sure there is some push but the consumer leads on this....

Originally Posted by Build.It

Consumers drive the market. Corporations respond to the market. Yes SUVs and trucks are more profitable, as a more expensive product should be. However it is the consumers who are demanding these products, and the corporations are simply fulfilling a demand....

Consumer demand for these products is shaped by the car manufacturers having marketed them over smaller vehicles, in large part due to tax regulations in the US that made large truck-like vehicles far, far more profitable:

Top Speed: The Real Reason Why SUVs Are So Popular In The U.S.

Distilled: The Loophole That Made Cars in America So Big

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Consumer demand for these products is shaped by the car manufacturers having marketed them over smaller vehicles, in large part due to tax regulations in the US that made large truck-like vehicles far, far more profitable:

Top Speed: The Real Reason Why SUVs Are So Popular In The U.S.

Distilled: The Loophole That Made Cars in America So Big

Yep. Pretty cute that people think this demand was entirely organic and not driven by the Chicken Tax in the US and the lobbying that followed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, no question Norway has done a better job managing their oil wealth and creating a legacy. Though it is easier to do when you're a smaller country of just 5,4 million people. You can certainly see why Albertans feel they might do better on their own.

Alberta and Norway are close enough un population. But that's about it. The reason Alberta is not better off has nothing at all to do with being inside Canada.

Norway: Nationalized oil company. Banks all oil and gas revenue in the Sovereign Wealth Fund and only collects the earnings of the fund. They never touch the principal. Imposes very high consumption and income taxes to pay for their welfare state.

Alberta: Doesn't even collect enough to overcome the tens of billions in orphan well cleanup liabilities they have. Most of the revenue goes to non-resident shareholders thanks to fully private energy sector. Periodically make withdrawals from their SWF. Low consumption and income taxes. Generally refuses to spend on infrastructure and the welfare state beyond national average.

Having watched their management as a province, I think we can safely way that the real beneficiaries of any independent Alberta would be the shareholders of the oil and gas companies, not Albertans.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Alberta and Norway are close enough un population. But that's about it. The reason Alberta is not better off has nothing at all to do with being inside Canada.

Norway: Nationalized oil company. Banks all oil and gas revenue in the Sovereign Wealth Fund and only collects the earnings of the fund. They never touch the principal. Imposes very high consumption and income taxes to pay for their welfare state.

Alberta: Doesn't even collect enough to overcome the tens of billions in orphan well cleanup liabilities they have. Most of the revenue goes to non-resident shareholders thanks to fully private energy sector. Periodically make withdrawals from their SWF. Low consumption and income taxes. Generally refuses to spend on infrastructure and the welfare state beyond national average.

Having watched their management as a province, I think we can safely way that the real beneficiaries of any independent Alberta would be the shareholders of the oil and gas companies, not Albertans.

Preparing their economy for the post-oil world of the future is also a national obsession in Norway.

I don't think we can say the same level of urgency regarding economic diversification is present in Alberta.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Alberta and Norway are close enough un population. But that's about it. The reason Alberta is not better off has nothing at all to do with being inside Canada.

Norway: Nationalized oil company. Banks all oil and gas revenue in the Sovereign Wealth Fund and only collects the earnings of the fund. They never touch the principal. Imposes very high consumption and income taxes to pay for their welfare state.

Alberta: Doesn't even collect enough to overcome the tens of billions in orphan well cleanup liabilities they have. Most of the revenue goes to non-resident shareholders thanks to fully private energy sector. Periodically make withdrawals from their SWF. Low consumption and income taxes. Generally refuses to spend on infrastructure and the welfare state beyond national average.

Having watched their management as a province, I think we can safely way that the real beneficiaries of any independent Alberta would be the shareholders of the oil and gas companies, not Albertans.

Blaming it all on Canada or worse Quebec and equalization is of course sill but so is saying it has nothing to do with their situation. They do subsidize the rest of Canada to a great degree at least in per capita terms though dramatically less than Ontario does over most time periods.

Their oil is very different from Norway's though and a huge portion of especially the oil sands industry would not exist without strong rule of law and permissive corporate environment. Nobody would have spent the funds they have spent if there was a chance for a windfall tax or being nationalized.

All that said their aversion to spending anything and stupid decisions like sending cheques to everyone instead of even basic things like building a highway to Fort McMurray do matter. Of course a simple 5% sales tax in addition to allowing a multibillion dollar gift from the feds if harmonized would stabilize their finances but government bad is the only mantra they know.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I honestly don't understand all of the blind passionate support for Big Oil and hostility to the electric transition both here on SSP and elsewhere in various forums. Are there really that many people whose personal fortunes are inextricably tied to the legacy oil and gas sector?

I sort of get people directly involved with the Alberta oil patch but we even have these anti-electric types in Quebec of all places where that sector is marginal.

Ultimately, I don't really care what powers my transportation or heats my house, as long as I can get around as I please and stay warm. If it costs about the same and is just as practical plus has the bonus of polluting the planet less, then why would a logical person be opposed?

Is there perhaps something essential in all of our retirement funds that is directly linked to Big Oil's fortunes? Maybe I need to check some documents in my filing cabinet.

Other than that, I just don't get it.

Like I said earlier. It's all culture war nonsense. I mean you can't have an intelligent discussion about EVs with somebody who actually believes that you need 6x as many EV chargers as gas pumps. People like that are either climate deniers, hate tech or hate the Liberals, so they'll say anything to oppose whatever cleantech policy is put forward by the Liberals.

The policy itself is not aggressive at all, given that PHEVs are included. And the first target is 20% is ridiculously low. We're over half way there already. Like I said earlier, they had to do it to guarantee supply without giving larger rebates. Six months from now nobody is going notice or even be talking about it. Adoption growth will just continue. We're in the early adopter phase now and model selection and prices will improve in each stage:

[Acajack]

Alberta also literally survived the dust bowl and other hardship in the pre-oil days due to the support of the rest of the country, and even the initial oil development got 15-25% of the start-up money from the feds. Norway have been on their own since the early 1800s.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Preparing their economy for the post-oil world of the future is also a national obsession in Norway.

I don't think we can say the same level of urgency regarding economic diversification is present in Alberta.

Norway is such a gold standard on managing resource wealth that Guyana has asked them to run independent oversight and help develop management strategies for their newfound oil wealth. I don't think anybody will ask Alberta for advice on managing resource wealth in our lifetimes.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Norway is such a gold standard on managing resource wealth that Guyana has asked them to run independent oversight and help develop management strategies for their newfound oil wealth. I don't think anybody will ask Alberta for advice on managing resource wealth in our lifetimes.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

"Build nuclear" sounds like a great idea but it's one that's not as realistic as "build solar" or "build wind", both of which are cheaper, quicker, and don't face nearly the regulatory hurdles.

That's not really true though, because nuclear plants provide literally hundreds of times more power than wind and solar do, and nuclear plants provide constant power all day every day whereas wind and solar are intermittent.

Wind and solar are a great top up to an energy grid but you can't have entire cities running just off wind and solar. You need nuclear or hydroelectric to form the base load.

The sheer volume of wind and solar needed to actually generate comparable amounts of power to a nuclear plant wipe out the supposed "faster" argument. Ontario plans on building 6000MW of new nuclear capacity. To actually get all that same amount of power from wind and solar you'd need 18000MW of new capacity (as wind and solar only produce at 30% capacity compared to 90% for nuclear). The process of actually deploying 18000MW of wind and solar would require massive new projects everywhere, huge amounts of new high voltage transmission lines to connect all the cities to the new projects, and an enormous supply chain deployment to get all the rare earth metals and special ores needed to build all of those things. By the time you actually got all 18000MW of those projects built out it would take 15 years anyway.

Wind and solar aren't even really "cleaner" anyway. The process of manufacturing all those PV cells and carbon fibre bodies is quite dirty and uses a lot of special metals that require a lot of dirty refining.. plus recycling them at end of life is similarly quite dirty. to power an entire country.

The nuclear waste argument is also heavily informed by misinformation. Nuclear waste isn't leaky toxic goop that burns everything it touches like shown in The Simpsons. It's small, heavy rocks that aren't actually that dangerous with short term exposure. I could be put a year's worth of Ontario's nuclear waste production in your bathroom sink and you could go take a shower next to it.. and nothing bad would happen to you. You'd have to have those rocks in your sink for years before you'd start getting cancers and stuff.

[1overcosc]

I'm very grateful that the global environmental movement is rapidly getting over their anti-nuclear vendetta and their wind & solar fetish. Nuclear deployment is rapidly becoming the consensus option for green energy. And that's very good. Only a nuclear based grid can actually provide all of the primary energy use for an entire economy. All the bright minds get it.