Getting to Net Zero

Contributed by Ian Cameron, Director for Friends of Science Society ©2024
The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which became law on June 29, 2021, “enshrines in legislation Canada’s commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.” To date most of the federal government’s focus has been on its 2030 Paris Agreement target of reaching CO2eq emission reductions 40-45% below the 2005 level of 741 Mt (i.e., 2030 net emissions of 445-408 Mt).
The government’s first attempt to determine what it would take to reach net-zero was a report released in December 2021 by the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) called Canada’s Energy Future 2021: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2050 (EF2021). EF2021 did not explicitly model a net-zero future, which drew criticism and resulted in a directive from the Minister of Natural Resources to the CER to “provide even more data in line with Canada achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.”
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, “one of Canada’s leading progressive voices in public policy debates,” took note of EF2023 and commissioned David Hughes to use it as the basis for a report, released on February 8, 2024 and called Getting to Net-Zero in Canada - Scale of the problem, government projections and daunting challenges (full 64-page report and 6-page summary). This article in The Tyee quotes Mr. Hughes’ reason for writing Getting to Net-Zero: “My objective is to provide policymakers and the public with an understanding of the scale of the problem so they can appreciate the scale that any solution is going to have to take. Only with understanding and buy-in can the necessary changes be implemented.”
CCPA's analysis was brutally realistic.
As Mr. Hughes told The Tyee: “We are going to have to accept contraction, unfortunately. It has been a slice. But the math does not work for continuous growth.” In other words, getting to net-zero means an end to economic growth, let alone the 1.4%/year real GDP increase assumed in EF2023.
To burnish their climate credentials the minister and his colleagues desperately want to issue press releases and pose for photo-ops showing tangible progress for the commercially useless Pathways Alliance project. What the ministers desperately don’t want is to tell the public that fulfilling their government’s net-zero agenda will entail a quarter century of ever more energy and economic deprivation.
Here is a link to the full analysis by Ian Cameron, P. Eng.
blog.friendsofscience.org/202...
Please like, share and subscribe. Support our work with a donation! Etransfers: [e-mail] To learn more or to become a member of Friends of Science: www.friendsofscience.org

[@sparkyy0007]

Net zero... yay...no more carbon !! ..... except you are the carbon they want gone 😱😱😱

[@Snowdog070]

I have the T-shirt which says "You are the carbon they want to reduce" with a big fist and pointing finger pointing at whoever is looking at it.

[@gary122]

🎯

[@bjchorny]

Justin Trudeau's Green Mile has him crawling headlong into the last grave yard.

[@politicalfoolishness7491]

And Steven Guilbeault reminds me of Wild Bill in that movie - a bundle of bad.

[@kingoncommonlaw130]

carbon is not a pollutant.

[@Snowdog070]

It certainly isn't. I did environmental law enforcement for an entire career. Never laid a charge or issued an order to anyone emitting "too much CO2" because CO2 is not a "contaminant".

[@kingoncommonlaw130]

@@Snowdog070 A house built on lies will surly fall. How many lives will they destroy before folks wake up; and this is only one of many mandates built on lies. Blessings man.

[@donlarson5013]

We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant? A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.

[@kingoncommonlaw130]

@@donlarson5013 ur only half correct - and the Co2 pollutant is based on false computer models and lies.

[@donlarson5013]

@@kingoncommonlaw130 Show us the "false computer models". Show us the "lies"

[@pkjohnston]

Getting to Net Zero: 1) hold breath 2) hold 3) hold 4) hold ❤

[@MokeTheGeniusDog]

Thank you for making me laugh out loud. 🤣

[@gary122]

😂 next line would be 6ft under

[@AegonCallery-ty6vy]

This assumption that costs will decline is predicated on a massive economic expansion and a total reverse of the current inflation. So, basically a situation dreamed up in lala land..

[@anthonywilson8998]

None of these policies allow for massive increases in elec demands when all fossil fuels are removed. 3 to 4 times the existing capacities will be required along with very expensive battery backup not possible, hence more fossil to power stns as backup and also increased renewables backup on top . Standby power needs will als increase as power cuts to become more likely.

[@carob6977]

Nope.