Wednesday, 26 October 2016

We need to rework a timeless proverb

By: Bill Whitelaw // President and CEO at JuneWarren-Nickle's Energy Group. Troy Media
Published: Fort Nelson News

To bring the devastation in Canada's oil and gas sector into sharp focus

Calgary - An old proverb makes connections where they seemingly don't exist to show that all actions have consequences, often unintended.

         It starts with the loss of a single nail that affixed an iron shoe to a horse's hoof. The linking narrative builds from there.
         Most often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, the proverb offers simple homespun logic, building to a powerful conclusion.
             For want of a nail the shoe was lost
             For want of a shoe the horse was lost
             For want of a horse the rider was lost
             For want of a rider the message was lost
             For want of a message the battle was lost
             For want of a battle the kingdom was lost
             And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
        The proverb has morphed over the years to adapt to changing contexts and circumstances. But its underlying essence remains unchanged: little things can have big consequences and sometimes you have to work hard to connect the dots.
        Just ask the thousands of Canadians and their families who are the human dots - and have been profoundly disconnected from the normalcy of being employed as Canada's oil and gas sector crashes and burns.
        What's most frustrating for them is that Canadian politicians, while generally sympathetic, seem only vaguely aware of the consequences when drill bits don't turn. They don't connect the human dots to the real consequences of an energy sector on its knees and the implications for the Canadian economy and, therefore, ordinary Canadians.
         The tough reality is that the men and women who run for public office, regardless of party affiliation, are generally well-intentioned but in matters of energy, frequently poorly informed. More often than not, they know little more than those who voted them into office.
         And if Canada has a problem bigger than politicians without the credentials or experience to shape meaningful policy, it's a body politic that woefully and shamefully ignorant of the complex energy dynamics that shape and define their world.
        The catastrophic state of the nation's petroleum sector barely registers on most Canadians. They have no sense of the longer-term impacts it will have on their lives. Perhaps a requirement of citizenships should be a basic course in energy civics.
        Our energy future is being shaped by individuals who came to office with good intentions but bad energy backgrounds. For the most party, their source of energy intelligence and insights comes from bureaucracies too often suffering from their own energy myopia.
        It opens up the very real possibility that political action and policy creation will produce consequences diametrically opposite of the intended objectives. (Current debates over carbon pricing and carbon taxes are perhaps the most useful example at the moment.)
        In the spirit of the proverb's flexibility over time, here's a contemporary variant that remains true to the original theme. It will certainly resonate for the thousands of Canadians who today bear the consequences of the profound collapse of Canada's oil and gas sector - those who know well what happens when the drill bit doesn't turn.
       For the want of a bit the well was lost
       For the want of a well the job was lost
       For the want of a job the career was lost
       For the want of a career the family was lost
       For the want of a family a sector was lost
       For the want of a sector an economy was lost
       And all for the want of a drill bit.
     Many Canadians would be happy if at least one politician understood the simple, undeniable logic of this updated version.

Friday, 14 October 2016

The 'social licence' myth

By: Goldy Hyder
Published: National Post

What we are actually talking about is social acceptance a far more ambiguous concept. The term "social licence" is fast becoming one of those ubiquitous expressions that everyone uses, but nobody understands.

To some, social licence is a shield used to defend the public interest. To others, it is a sword used to strike down specific infrastructure projects or other industrial developments. The federal government recently added its own definition to the mix: "Social licence is about ensuring public confidence in the decision-making for major resource projects."

Having considered the matter for some time, I have come to believe that the confusion stems from the fact that social licence is actually a myth or, at the very least, a gross misnomer. Using the word "licence" in relation to projects requiring government approval falsely suggests that there exists some type of formal certificate or other legally binding document that these projects need to go ahead. In reality, there is no social licensing authority to which companies can apply and no set conditions to be met in order to obtain a universally accepted permit to operate.

There is no such thing as a "social licence." What we are actually talking about is social acceptance, and therein lies the problem; acceptance is a far more ambiguous concept. A licence is something fixed and permanent, but acceptance is both fluid and temporary. A licence provides enforceable rights, but acceptance can be unilaterally revoked. By asking companies to obtain a "social licence," we are giving them the mistaken impression that gaining such a licence can be handled like any other regulatory process. It is vital that companies understand that social acceptance requires more than simply putting forward a carefully reasoned case that demonstrates the merits of a given proposal.
Instead, social acceptance requires that companies work closely with multiple stakeholders to build trust and earn the legitimacy needed to act on their plans. More specifically, it involves inviting the full range of interested stakeholders into the corporate decision-making process at the earliest possible opportunity, then listening to what they have to say.

It is human nature that people are more likely to endorse and less likely to oppose a proposal that they have had a role in creating. We help defend what we help develop.

Many corporate leaders come from backgrounds in finance, engineering, accounting and law, and are trained to excel in situations involving defined parameters and defined rules. It is understandable, therefore, that they might be uncomfortable with the notion of developing plans based on the shifting sands of such an unsettled foundation.

More importantly, it used to be taken for granted that government would help gain public support for projects that it considered to be in the best interests of the country. That is no longer true. Successive governments have now shifted the burden of building public support to those proposing the initiatives. Absent a wide degree of social acceptance, government won't act.

Over time, this approach has cost governments both the ability and legitimacy to make unilateral decisions about major infrastructure projects. As a result, large companies with even larger ambitions can suddenly find themselves being held back just as the fictional Gulliver was held down by an army of Lilliputians.

Yet, instead of a hundred tiny strings, companies are restrained by thousands of individual tweets and blogs. It is in the way that individuals can now overpower institutions. The Internet and social media have created a societal power imbalance, where the vocal and active minority have an outsized influence over what gets built and how companies operate.

It used to be that if a majority of people kept quiet on an issue, their silence was taken as a sign that they were either unopposed, or perhaps, that they were largely indifferent. Today, their silence is co-opted by the vocal minority who tirelessly assert that they are speaking for 99 per cent of the people. This is why companies need to mobilize silent supporters.

Ultimately, the message is simply this: whether it is called social licence or social acceptance, the reality today is that without active and demonstrable public support, nothing gets done. And companies that undertake large projects requiring government approval must do all the heavy lifting themselves, which means engaging key audiences from the outset.

Thursday, 6 October 2016

An argument for clean fossil fuel investment

By: Darrell Stonehouse/Editor
Published: Oilweek- October Issue

       Replace fossil fuels with renewables like wind and solar. Almost years after the Kyoto Protocal first attempted to tie countries around the world to greenhouse gas reductions, this argument remains the only scenario that global green groups can come up with to stem the flow of emissions into the atmosphere.

        Yet despite almost a quarter century of hyperbolic alarmism, warnings of catastrophe and trillions of dollars in renewable investment, those emissions just keep on rising.
         In developing economies, coal-fired power plants continue popping up like weeds and cars continue populating the landscape like ants as global poverty slowly recedes and more and more people get a taste of the better life.
         And oil and gas and coal supplies keep climbing to meet this demand.
         Maybe it's time for a different strategy, one that accepts the world is going to be using fossil fuels for a long time so it better get a lot more efficient and greener in how it does it.
         This isn't to say the world should stop looking for renewable solutions. It should, and  it should implement them as they become cost-effective. It is simply a statement of reality: fossil fuels will continue dominating the energy mix for at least the next 25 years, with most forecasters expecting them to remain 80 per cent of the total energy mix in 2040. Renewable will grow from current levels of three per cent to nine per cent of the energy mix.
         If climate change is a serious issue and must be dealt with now, the world needs to find ways to burn fossil fuels cleanly.
         Who carries this responsibility?
          Almost 90 per cent of emissions come from four sectors: power generation (30 per cent), transportation (26 per cent). industrial uses (21 per cent), and commercial and residential heating (12 per cent).
          In global power generation, coal is king, generating over 40 per cent of electricity. Oil accounts for over 90 per cent of transportation emissions, and petroleum dominates in the industrial and residential heating categories. Right now, the only area renewables are having a measurable impact in is power generation, and that impact is minimal as growth in energy demand is driving construction of new coal plants in emerging economies.
          Research is underway to clean coal emissions. One example is an effort by MIT to combine two existing technologies - coal gasification and fuel cells - to increase plant efficiency and reduce emissions by 50 per cent. More investment like this is needed.
          Approximately 99 per cent of vehicles on the road in 2035 are expected still run on internal combustion engines, according to recent U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast. There are a variety of technologies like forced induction (supercharging) and cylinder deactivation (only using half of cylinders when on light duty) that show promise in increasing efficiency and cutting emissions. Here is another good place to invest.
         You get the point.
          If we are going to deal with climate change now, we are going to deal with it through investing in clean fossil fuel technologies. There turnover to renewables is a long way off, even if they were ready for prime time now, which they are not.
         The premier of Alberta and the prime minister of Canada need to think about where they are going to invest their carbon tax windfalls. Clean fossils fuel technology is a good place to start.
          

Is Canada's Public Service Infected By Unicorns and Fairy Dust?

By: Heather Douglas
Published: The Roughneck - September Issue

         "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains
           Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend
           More than cool reason ever comprehends."
                        William Shakespeare (1564-1616), A Midsummer Night's Dream

      The eggheads in Policy Canada (Horizons), a think tank housed within the Public Service of Canada, recently pontificated that renewable energy will soon be so cheap it will be the norm. Perhaps the civil service has fallen so deeply in love with the notion that "dirty oil" is ruining the planet their brains have developed a form of temporary absurdity.
      In June, 2016, Policy Canada published a report entitled, Canada in a Changing Global Energy Landscape, where they gleefully preach the notion that renewable energy - solar and wind - will soon replace fossils fuels. The federal government's policy wonks, who were always presumed to evaluate every issue through an unbiased and impartial lens, believe this shift away from coal, oil and natural has will occur much quicker than anyone thought.
      The report hypothesizes the costs for renewables will nose dive, there are looming breakthroughs in electric storage and electric car technologies, and the globe will turn its collective back on fossils fuels causing the price of a barrel to plummet.
      What's driving these changes? The authors cite cost reduction, digital economy, as well as climate change and air pollution. "Many components of a renewable-based electricity system are declining in cost much faster than predicted due to advances in technology, economies of scale, and accelerating learning curves as experience with these system grows," they wrote.
      "The digital systems run on electricity and as the global economy shifts to become increasingly digital, the relative proportion of electricity in energy use will increase," they added. Furthermore, "developing countries are embracing renewable energy to meet their economic and development goals with trading off environmental quality and human health."
        The Fraser Institute dusted off its eyeglasses and called the report environmental wishful thinking. "Energy systems are massive, and being massive, they have massive momentum - they're slow to change, requiring many decades for one fuel to replace another," wrote Kenneth P. Green, an environmental scientist and director of the organization.
       " The risks of believing in fairytale high-speed change is in not realizing the kind of economic wreckage that can ensure by trying to rapidly rebuild the energy systems that are key to out prosperity, that keep the lights on and planes flying, and that give us a quality of life that is the envy of much of the world," Green added.
        What if the feds decided to implement Policy Canada's recommendations and mandate the elimination of these sources of fossil fuels within the next 10 to 15 years?
        Ultimately, policies that prohibit the use of conventional fuels would impede these lesser-known but no less valuable uses. This would have an enormously negative impact on the entire economy and also means that product development scientists must find new feedstocks -for industrial and consumer goods - in warp time.  
         According to Ranken Energy, an E&P company based in Oklahoma, approximately 46 percent of a barrel of oil used in North America is refined into gasoline, jet fuels, diesel, and lubricants. The rest - about 54 percent - is consumed in the fabrication of more than 6,000 products consumers need and use on a regular basis to:
  •          Save lives - anesthetics, antiseptics, aspirin, dentures, heart valves, prosthetics, etc.;
  • Clean humans and houses - cold cream, deodorant, shaving cream, mops, trash bags, shower curtains, plastics, etc.;
  • Enable the assembly of cars - sports car bodies, wheels, motor oils, etc.;
  • Entertain our children - balloons, crayons, juice boxes, cartoons on TV, etc.;
  • Track our friends and enables us to access the latest news and sports - cell phones, computers, iPads, Xboxes, etc.
  • Clothe us - blouses, dresses, pants, shoes, etc.; and
  • Keep us fit to participate in sports -footballs, skates, motorcycle helmets, footballs, fishing gear, skis, etc.
  "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
       Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream

        Maybe the Ottawa mandarins are not fools but steely-eyed realists. Perhaps they understand that conventional fuels are the backbone of the Canadian way of life. Canada's fossil fuels are efficient, abundant, and environmentally sound sources of energy. Possibly they think burning hydrocarbons to heat homes and to power vehicles is a colossal waste - and will soon be obsolete. Maybe they are actually advocating that every barrel of Canadian oil and cubic metre of natural gas produced - 100 per cent - should be refined into feedstock to manufacture industrial and consumer goods.
        Every lifestyle poll indicates that Canadians are not willing to make "significant changes to their current standards of living" yet want "to transition to clean, affordable energy." When probed about the 54 per cent of a barrel of petroleum which prevents deaths, enables spotless homes and clean paws, amuses the grand-kids, and gives them the latest electronic toys, their enthusiasm for shutting down fossil fuels diminishes.
       The energy industry needs to rethink how hydrocarbons are used. Burning it as fuel makes less and less sense. Whether it takes one or five decades to achieve, we support sustainable practices, the transition to clean, affordable energy, and focusing on producing the feedstock needed for consumer products.
       We salute the steely-eyed realists.

Alberta Government Rubbing Salt in the Wound

By: Paige MacPherson
Published: Business in Calgary - September Issue

          The Alberta government does not control the price of oil. If it's been said once, it's been said a million times. It's the main line of defense from the government when facing its fiscal critics.

The Alberta government does not control the price of oil, however, the Alberta government does control its policy reaction to the price of oil; and right now, that reaction is to grab a handful of salt and rub it right where it hurts.

For the first time since Statistics Canada began collecting data in the 1970s, Alberta's unemployment rate has surpassed that of Nova Scotia. For decades, Nova Scotians have migrated to Alberta in droves to find work. East Coasters are a dime a dozen in Edmonton and beyond, but now, alongside other Albertans, many find themselves struggling with the same lack of jobs they faced back east.

Alberta's unemployment rate was spiked recently by a large number of new people entering the province's labour force, without the availability of jobs with which to match them. Those hardest hit are aged 15-18. These workers are mostly seeking low-skilled, part-time work - jobs generally created by Alberta's retail stores and restaurants. Unfortunately, these businesses have small margins and are the ones hit fastest by tax and wake hikes.

With the provincial recession, Albertans are already consuming less. This reality should have signalled that businesses need support in the form of lower taxes and lessened regulation.

The Alberta government didn't drop the price of oil. The government didn't spark the recession. But they are certainly fanning the flames.

Almost immediately, Alberta's NDP government hiked business taxes, personal income taxes, alcohol and tobacco taxes, train fuel taxes, education property taxes, doubled the existing "big emitter" carbon levy and introduced a whopper of a carbon tax and substantial minimum wage hikes.

These policy choices (yes, the government had a choice) were all made at the same time the federal government hiked taxes and Canada Pension Plan premiums, and municipal governments in Calgary and Edmonton hiked property taxes for the umpteenth time.

Protests at the legislature have been frequent. Business groups have begged the government to please take a step back and put their steamrolling tax hikes on hold. Calgary's small businesses are dropping like flies. None of it seems to matter to the government.

Recently, a Lethbridge restaurant owner explained to Global News that a minimum wage  hike would force him to cut staff by 50 per cent. (It should be self-evident that a business must turn a profit in order to create jobs.) He wrote to Lethbridge East MLA Maria Fitzpatrick. Her response? Fitzpatrick called him selfish. Publicly.

Why isn't the government receptive in the least to the plain-faced struggles of those who are paying our MLA's tabs?

Perhaps we should start phrasing it in a way they'll actually respond to: if you want healthy tax revenue, you need a healthy business climate that respects job creators. Just ask the Nova Scotians-turned-Albertans who call this once-prospering province home.

Monday, 3 October 2016

Why Pipeline Protesters Are THE WORST CANADIANS EVER

Published: Oilfield PULSE magazine
By: Chris Grabill

    Pipeline protesters are worse than people who steal poppy collection money, worse than Alberta NDP caucus members, and worse, even still, then people who say, "Working hard or hardly working?" Simply put, the motley crew protesting the Energy East, Trans-Mountain, and Northern Gateway pipeline projects are the worst Canadians ... ever.

    WHY? 
     THEY FIND MATH TOO HARD
           As much as they would love to live in a world where oil and gas are not needed, the fact remains the global demand for our product is growing daily. In the foreseeable future, the elimination of fossil fuels will not occur. I hate to burst their bubble. So, why do they insist we change to an 'alternate economy' or do something the market is not demanding? Furthermore, any stats on pipeline safety show it is the most effective and safest way to transport oil. The main competitor would be rail, and i am sure there are many in the food industry, not to mention the people of Lac Megantic (site of a tragic oil rail fire that killed dozens in Quebec), who would prefer we stop moving so much oil via rail.
   
   Canada has always had a robust environmental oversight of the industry, and it continues today.

   THEY'RE ANTI-SCIENCE
        Instead of dealing in the grown-up world of science, they prefer to stay in the ether of rhetoric. To break it down in a few steps:
             1. Climate change science is not settled. The nature of the scientific method states this          inherently with the growing voices of dissent and the growing piles of corruption in initial research on the matter.
             2. Canada's contribution to greenhouse gases is minimal and many would argue is net negative due to the massive carbon sink we have called the, uh, millions of acres of boreal forest and other plant life.
             3. If the science of climate change is proven correct (it won't be)_, then stopping all oil and gas in Canada will not do one thing for the environment, but it will cost billions of dollars that could've been used to mitigate the effects of climate change if, in fact, it was real (it's not). So, on these three points, these people are more flat-earthers than the original burners of heretics.


   THEY'RE ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL
       They claim to be saving the environment by crippling the Canadian energy industry. They would happily have our industry shut down and be replaced by bird-murdering, blightful windmills that increasingly have a massive environmental impact in the use of resources to build them, the rare earth elements used inside of them, the amount of land required to house them, and the negative impact on flying wildlife. And, lest we forget, no windmills have ever been effective in replacing fossil fuels on a power grid in the world, and none have been economical without massive government subsidies, which we, the people, pay for.
       Further to their anti-environmentalism is the fact that for every barrel of Canadian oil not consumed by the world market, it will be replaced by a barrel from some pretty nasty spots. Parts Africa, Russia, and the Middle East have ridiculously low standards for environmental protection. Even our neighbours to the South have some rogue fields of unhealthy oil production. Canada has always had a robust environmental oversight of the industry, and it continues today.  With that comes the development of technologies and standards that can be exported to other parts of the world and actually have a true positive effect on the environment. These activists simply shouting down Canada are actually going to be the root cause of further environmental damage to the globe. The irony is delicious if it wasn't so sad.

   THEY'RE AGAINST MINORITIES
        Another feature of the replaceable barrel phenomenon mentioned above is that as you do not support Canadian oil, you inadvertently support some true fiends. We bring in oil from the Middle East, which could be supplanted by Canadian oil if Energy East was approved. In this part of the world, women's rights are dubious at best. And, homosexuals are routinely beheaded and chucked off buildings. Our money that purchases their oil directly supports and funds the governments that carry out these atrocities.
        Activists continue to marginalize minorities right here at home by ensuring our first nations people will not receive revenue or jobs from the projects. The occasional bought-and-paid-for chief is part of the groups, but they typically use heart-wrenching 'mother earth' talk while lining their pockets with cash. Countless other bands and individual natives continue to be in cycle of poverty and misery perpetuated by an outdated and racist government system. By not allowing them use their lands for pipeline projects, this keeps them down and takes opportunity, wealth, and employment away form their next generation. Truly abhorrent.

    THEY'RE ANTI-CANADIAN
          The pipeline projects in question here will help alleviate a big and long-standing issue with the Canadian oil and gas industry today, which is we need more markets. Essentially, all of our energy is sold to the increasingly competitive US market. Our products are landlocked, and they need to reach ports on the West Coast and markets in the East. Even in low price environment, these projects will bring in massive revenue that increases the wealth of the producing provinces, increases transfer payments to other provinces, increases jobs in manufacturing in eastern Canada, and a host of other economic, nation-building benefits. But, the pipeline protesters will hear none of it.
         Why? Good question. The movement is essentially two types of people. Leaders and cannon fodder. The students and riff raff who protest are useful idiots and nothing more. The leadership who directs these people are a whole other thing. These are professional trouble-makers, and their livelihood depends on doing this activism. But, who pays them? Unlike yelling at a public forum, marching with a silly sign, or doing a sit-in generates in real revenue. They are paid by foreign actors, which is typically the competition to our energy. Russian, Middle Eastern, and American money flows to these groups to protest our own oil, and these groups take it and work hard to earn it. It's almsot treasonous.

     THEY'RE UNDEMOCRATIC
           The majority of people who support pipelines are at work, looking for work, or starting a business. They are  a huge silent majority. The paid professionals and their useful idiots have motive, time, and belligerence. The more noise they make, the more it seems like these pipeline approvals shouldn't be the absolute slam dunk that anyone with common sense thinks. They do this by shouting down opposition, shutting down meetings, and who knows how far they will go into violence and chaos as the process lurches forward. This behaviour violates the main and most powerful principle of our western world -- democracy. These people have no respect for it.
         All these distasteful characteristics - their passivity for horrible regimes and practices while sneering at Canada, their taking foreign money to punish our economy and our most vulnerable citizens, and their denial of rational fats and healthy debate being the solution to issues -- can only lead you to one conclusion. Pipeline activists are the worst Canadians ever.
         At the end of the day, the one visceral image is this: pipeline protesters are not saving the environment, they are not preventing a millionaire from getting a second vacation home, they are not protecting the ocean, they are not creating better energy, they are not diversifying the economy, and they are not protecting first nations. Simply put, the only tangible thing they are doing is screwing over the guy in Drayton Valley who wants to get in his truck, work hard, and feed his family.

Carbon Corner! Don't be Fooled!

Published: Oilfield Pulse magazine
By: Kevin Turko

       It started out as global warming, then it morphed into climate change and now the politicians and eco-activists have latched on Carbon Pricing as the latest boogeyman in their quest to save us and our planet. Each of these movements have conjured up countless predictions of our impending doom, many of which were based on far reaching hypotheses rather than proven science. We still have our polar ice caps, Canada hasn't turned into a barren desert wasteland, nor have we experienced the next great Canadian Ice Shield.

    (In upcoming issues of Oilfield PULSE, Carbon Corner will include a series of informative articles on the real impact of carbon on our fair planet and how our opportunistic governments intend to capitalize on this new found revenue stream. We hope to bring you thought leaders on this topic from within the oil and gas industry and to also reach out to experts in this field to debunk the myths and innuendo surrounding this sensitive, and soon to be costly topic for each and every Canadian. I thought i would start us off in this issue of Oilfield PULSE with my own personal views, from a concerned citizen and proud oil and gas industry insider.)

     While global warming and climate change are indeed worthy topics that warrant our full attention and meaningful two-way debate, carbon on the other hand has a much more sinister cousin. It's called Taxes. Call it by any other name like cap and trade or carbon pricing, let's get real, it's a carbon tax no matter which way you dress it up. Most of our provincial and now our new federal government have all jumped on this latest environmental bandwagon with even more fervor and dedication than the once fledgling Greenpeace movement of days gone by. Why? Well you can't tax global warming, nor can you latch a tax onto climate change, but our ingenious politicians and their environmental lobbyists have conveniently figured out multiple ways to tax carbon! And why not, the windfall is billions of dollars taken from the pockets of average Canadians and the businesses they rely on to support their families.
      Carbon sounds so bad! But stop, we're actually talking about carbon dioxide, or CO2 emissions. When used by the fervent anti-oil radicals, carbon appears to be so much deadlier than CO2. I thought i was taught in my Grade 9 science class that carbon dioxide was one of the fundamental building blocks to sustain life and vegetation on planet Earth. In fact, my science fair project proved this very fact. But like anything else, is too much of anything a bad thing? Perhaps too much CO2 is killing our planet, who knows, hell i'm not qualified to make this sort of scientific judgement call. I might add that very few, if any, of the Hollywood elite, entertainers, public servants and politicians can make this call either. But to be fair, nor can most of the people in the oil and gas industry!
      But when you wrap carbon up in potential taxes, our governments just can't get enough of it! Deep down they must know we can't exist without it, or sadly, are they such ideologists they can't see the forest for the trees. Speaking of trees, did you know due to our vast boreal forests in Canada we are actually carbon negative? There is a great video everyone should watch by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, PhD "The Sensible Environmentalist". Yes, i did say co-founder of Greenpeace! He cuts through some of "global warming" rhetoric with science and facts. He explains why carbon dioxide is a hero, not a planet killing taxable villain. Check it out at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Smhn1gL6Xg
     So if there is even a shred of truth in what Dr. Moore has to say, why are we taking these new carbon taxes seemingly lying down? Perhaps our governments know, at least for their current term in office, nothing meaningful is going to change, other than to drastically increase tax revenues by billions of dollars for our over spending government coffers! Yet we are being swayed through a glossy multi-million dollar Alberta Climate Leadership Plan ad campaign and by our politicians that this and other forthcoming carbon taxes will force all of us bad fossil fuel dependent Canadians to immediately reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Even if this was remotely doable, it's still not going to happen any time soon!
    Suck it up princess, we are all going to pay new carbon taxes in Alberta come January of next year! Lord knows what Trudeau and his climate change warriors still have up their sleeves,. I can't wait to see the glowing results these new carbon taxes will have on reduced carbon emissions, our economy and new pipeline approvals in 2017! Oh what a world it will be! Don't be fooled! On the other hand, thank goodness for Premier Brad Wall 'The  Sensible Politician' in Saskatchewan who understands if it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, tastes like a tax and acts like a tax, it must be a tax! And better yet, you've got to love his vocal opposition emphasizing how carbon taxes are the worst thing we could do to our struggling economy at the present time.
    Next month on the Carbon Corner ..... are we all being sold a carbon bill of goods called Social Licence? That and more!
    Carbon Corner......
    We're as mad as hell and we're not going to take this anymore!