Charles DeLand – What’s Under the Hood of Ottawa’s Emissions Reduction Roadster?


Canada On Track to Miss Ottawa’s Emissions Reduction Target by Half


Glen Hodgson – How Should Canada Respond to the US Inflation Reduction Act?


Canada’s Oil Sands Are Poised to Be the Last Barrel Standing


Brian Livingston – Missing the Emission Reduction Mark: Let Us Count the Ways


Oil Sands Production Versus Global Oil Prices


Myers, Papineau – Current Energy Modelling for Buildings is a Roadblock to Net Zero


G. Kent Fellows – Oil Sands are Richer Than You Think


We won’t make Ottawa’s 2030 emissions targets and it won’t even be close – Financial Post Op-Ed
Last March, Ottawa announced its target for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2030. It wants to reduce them from 740 million tonnes (MT) of CO2-equivalent in 2019 to 442 MT in 2030, a reduction of 298 MT, or 40 per cent. Unfortunately, setting targets is a lot easier than hitting them. Ottawa’s Emissions Reduction Plan is long on policies and programs but short on what will actually need to happen in order to reach these targets.
My own analysis, available on the C. D. Howe Institute website, suggests the 2030 reduction will be, at best, only 158 MT — only a little over halfway to Ottawa’s target.
I get this result with fact-based, bottom-up calculations. Consider …
L’argent pour la biodiversité – La Presse Op-Ed
La nature a beau être aimée de tous, il sera difficile de trouver tout l’argent nécessaire pour stopper, puis renverser sa perte de biodiversité, ai-je constaté en allant fouiner à la COP15. Un beau défi pour la finance durable.
L’expression « 30 x 30 » qui a retenu l’attention fait allusion aux 30 % de la terre et aux 30 % de l’eau qui doivent être protégés d’ici 2030. Mais elle désigne aussi les 30 milliards de dollars américains* d’aide annuelle aux pays en développement promise à partir de 2030.
Ce deuxième 30 x 30 est un compromis. Les pays riches étaient réticents, eux qui n’arrivent pas à livrer les 100 milliards par an promis au Sud pour lutter contre le…
When the wind isn’t blowing, the sun isn’t shining: The case for nuclear energy – Globe and Mail Op-Ed
A great part of Canada’s goal of eliminating emissions from electricity generation by 2050 relies on renewable energy, and the relevant technology is simply not there yet. Wind and solar generate valuable zero-greenhouse-gas power – but only provided there exist low-cost means to “store” surplus electricity not needed by the utility at time of generation but needed later. Without adequate storage, power utilities heavily dependent on wind/solar risk instability.
The problem has not arisen in Canada, but has elsewhere. Advocates of nuclear, including many Canadian power utilities, make the obvious argument in finding a solution: Nuclear power emits no GHGs and is accessible, whether or not the sun is shining and/or the wind is…
Last Barrel Standing? Confronting the Myth of “High-Cost” Canadian Oil Sands Production

