Climate Hypocrite Trudeau Government Blocks Canadian Carbon Audit

Justin Trudeau, author Radio Television Malacañang (RTVM), source Wikimedia.
Justin Trudeau, author Radio Television Malacañang (RTVM), source Wikimedia.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Auditor General Michael Ferguson has complained to the Canadian Parliament that the finance ministry refused to hand over documents required for him to complete an audit of Canadian fossil fuel subsidies.

Canada blocked climate change audit: official

May 16, 2017 by Michel Comte

Canada’s auditor general blasted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government Tuesday for effectively blocking an audit of efforts to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies in the fight against climate change.

But Ferguson said the finance ministry, which was tasked with identifying subsidies, refused to hand over key documents for analysis, citing cabinet confidentiality.

“We found that Finance Canada still had not defined what an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy was, nor could the department tell us how many inefficient fossil fuel subsidies there could be,” Ferguson said in prepared remarks.

Read more:

Prime Minister Trudeau is big on climate rhetoric, and frequently accuses his opponents of not taking climate change seriously, but his curious climate lapses have led to formerly enthusiastic climate activists attacking his government’s policies.

Stop swooning over Justin Trudeau. The man is a disaster for the planet

Bill McKibben

Donald Trump is a creep and unpleasant to look at, but at least he’s not a stunning hypocrite when it comes to climate change.

Donald Trump is so spectacularly horrible that it’s hard to look away – especially now that he’s discovered bombs. But precisely because everyone’s staring gape-mouthed in his direction, other world leaders are able to get away with almost anything. Don’t believe me? Look one country north, at Justin Trudeau.

Look all you want, in fact – he sure is cute, the planet’s only sovereign leader who appears to have recently quit a boy band. And he’s mastered so beautifully the politics of inclusion: compassionate to immigrants, insistent on including women at every level of government. Give him great credit where it’s deserved: in lots of ways he’s the anti-Trump, and it’s no wonder Canadians swooned when he took over.

But when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, he’s a brother to the old orange guy in Washington.

Read more:

Prime Minister Trudeau has also been criticised for his extravagant lifestyle, his personal carbon footprint.

Normally greens seem to overlook the carbon sins of their leaders, for example greens never really kicked up a fuss about Al Gore’s $30,000 / year home electricity bill.

But Prime Minister Trudeau has taken blatant environmental hypocrisy to a new level – his utter disregard for his supporter’s sensibilities has really tested the limits of green tolerance for their carbon swilling leaders.

PM’s use of jet for family vacation emitted as much CO2 as average Canadian per year

Josh Dehaas, Writer

Published Friday, January 20, 2017 5:48PM EST

The use of a military jet for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s two-week family vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island pumped about as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the average emitted per capita in Canada each year.

Trudeau’s use of the Challenger to fly his family and a nanny from Ottawa to Nassau, Bahamas over the New Year holiday and back consumed about 9,100 litres of jet fuel, according to the Department of National Defence.

Christopher Surgenor, who runs the environmental aviation website GreenAir, calculated that the trip would have therefore created about 23.3 tonnes of CO2.

In a way all this is funny – watching Trudeau in action is like watching an out of control laboratory experiment, one of those weird chemical reactions which ends up fizzing all over the bench.

But in a broader context the rank hypocrisy displayed by politicians like Trudeau damages faith in democracy, and potentially undermines the stability of the Canadian state. I utterly disagree with many of Trudeau’s political positions, at least his stated positions, but Canadian voters should have received the government they thought they were electing. There is no point in voting, if you believe none of the politicians on offer will keep their promises.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 16, 2017 3:28 pm

My favorite Trudeauism,

Reply to  Charles Rotter
May 16, 2017 6:02 pm

As a Canadian, I had not seen this before, nor reported by our predominantly liberal media, thank-you for this insight and good laugh. Possibly Russian’s were in the room when he communicated with the Ethics Commissioner thus why he is avoiding the question 🙂

Reply to  Duncan
May 16, 2017 7:12 pm

It’s surprising that such an egregious display is not known by all Canadians.
I assumed there must be some context I was missing, part of a larger conflict. But if that were the case, I would have expected a more confrontational and less evasive answer, but I’m not Canadian.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Duncan
May 16, 2017 7:37 pm

I once said it was not me who had been in the cookie jar though the chair I stood on had been dragged over to the counter, the jar lid lay broken around the chair legs, and I had chocolate crumbs on my teeth.

Reply to  Duncan
May 17, 2017 1:12 am

Is Trudeau really a clockwork robot with a locked tape-loop speech pattern ??
What an arrogant little bastard.
Even his own party members start to look embarrassed as he prevaricates.
That clip should be sent to every Canadian.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Duncan
May 17, 2017 4:48 am

Too bad they didn’t have the Ethics Commissioner there to ask him questions. He probably would have given the same answer.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
May 17, 2017 12:14 am

“No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”
– Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Charles Rotter
May 17, 2017 1:47 am

The questions were wrongly framed. They should have asked: Would the PM agree with me that he has not met with the ethics minister?

Reply to  Charles Rotter
May 17, 2017 11:32 am

At time period 7:55 & 9:00 … see all the trained monkeys in the background nodding in approval to the PMs response.
Do these monkeys spend time in the general public … and if they do, why are they not severely accosted?

May 16, 2017 3:30 pm

Oh, yea, never let an “audit” happen when it will show you to be a [pruned] liar.

May 16, 2017 3:30 pm

Preaching to the choir here. Stupid Republicans had 8 years to have a plan for anything and they’re fumbling at every turn to come with solutions to Obama induced problems they should have already had.
Does anyone get the government they vote for? Well except California, crazy moonbeam always delivers on the insanity.

Reply to  Logoswrench
May 16, 2017 6:07 pm

Hence, Drain the Swamp!!!! Just differing degrees of uselessness. Occasionally there is a ray of light. Why get anything done when you can just argue about getting something done.

Reply to  Duncan
May 17, 2017 12:19 am

And how long has Trump been in office?
The obvious question:
Would things have been better under Hillary?
Not a bad start for Trump though:
In First 2 Months in Office – Trump Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama Increased Debt by $400 Billion – Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
Obama left the federal government approximately $9,400,000,000,000 deeper in debt than it was when he took office eight years ago, according to data released by the U.S. Treasury.
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December, 2016. That debt is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush served as president.
Trump’s 100 Days a Success
Illegal Immigration Down by Unprecedented 73%
Just getting started.
President Donald Trump to fill 117 vacancies on various federal courts.
U.S. Illegal Immigration Plunges on Trump Crackdown
20 Ways Trump Unraveled the Administrative State
Bit by bit, Trump methodically undoing Obama policies–Trump-Undoing%20Obama/id-c4fa9fa659394514aa645a7cfd3c31ed
Illegal Entrance into U.S. Lowest in 17 Years, Mexicans Too Afraid of Trump

Reply to  Duncan
May 17, 2017 9:03 am

There is only so much draining Trump can do. Elected members of the swamp must be drained by the voters.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Duncan
May 18, 2017 6:51 pm

If Trump would just keep his actual and virtual mouths shut, he’d be awesome.

Climate Heretic
Reply to  Logoswrench
May 17, 2017 2:32 pm

+1000 Especially a solution for the American health care system.
Climate Heretic

Tom Halla
May 16, 2017 3:31 pm

But Trudeau looks like a pop star, so what do voters really care about his positions? /s

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 16, 2017 3:43 pm

Wait ‘till he starts losing his hair like his old man:comment image

Ian Cooper
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 16, 2017 5:26 pm

You get your hair from your mother’s father, not your father!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 16, 2017 8:01 pm

He looks like his mother who was very attractive.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 17, 2017 3:48 am

If thats true Ian , I should be bald, which I aint

Timo (not that one)
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 17, 2017 5:45 am

Should have merged his picture with a picture of his real father, Fidel Castro.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 17, 2017 7:30 am

@ Ian Cooper, my mother’s father went bald. My father and his father died in their 70s with a full head of hair, no receding hairline either. I conform to the latter at 66, no loss, no receding hairline.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 17, 2017 7:44 am

Justin is not in the same intelectual league as his father. Justin inherited his mom Margaret’s brain, not Pierres.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 18, 2017 6:34 am
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 17, 2017 6:59 am

Ian Cooper – how can that be true? Only if genes are sex-linked can you get them from a specific parent or grandparent, and for men that means on the Y chromosome. But my mother doesn’t have a Y, so she can’t pass on sex-linked genes to me from her father. The genes I know for certain I got from my father and his father are on the Y.
If the genes are on the X, then the X I have could have come from either my mother’s father or her mother. There’s a 50% chance that it came from her mother.

May 16, 2017 3:34 pm

Burning 8.2 tonnes of jet fuel creates 23.3 tonnes of CO2?
[Look at the molar weights, the material involved in combustion of fuels (1H1 + 6C12 and oxygen 8O16. .mod]

Reply to  rbabcock
May 16, 2017 6:44 pm

Yes, all your sins will be fourfolded….

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  rbabcock
May 17, 2017 2:59 am

Yes, but i doesn’t create any more Carbon 🙂

CD in Wisconsin
May 16, 2017 3:34 pm

Oh the pains of playing both sides of the climate change and energy fence. Isn’t it interesting how some are allowed to be hypocritical (like Gore and DiCaprio) while others are not?
Leaves me wondering how McKibben and other climate gloom-and-doomers choose who gets a license to be hypocritical and who doesn’t. What criteria does he use? Can I have one Bill?

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 17, 2017 7:00 am

All you have to do is to say the right things. There is no requirement to do the right thing. I’m not sure there ever has been really.

Curious George
May 16, 2017 3:49 pm

A deep state in Canada?

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Curious George
May 17, 2017 3:00 am

Yes, it’s called he Liberal Party

Rob Morrow
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
May 17, 2017 11:40 am

Don’t forget the Libs’ propaganda arm – The CBC.

Walter Sobchak
May 16, 2017 3:51 pm

As the Instapundit said: I will believe there is a crisis when they start acting like there is a crisis.

May 16, 2017 4:05 pm

A representative republic is NOT a democracy. The electorate and elected in both countries need to retake their HS civics class to remind them how it is supposed to work and read their Constitutional job descriptions, scopes of work, etc.
The people/electorate has the power which they funnel through their elected representatives who write the laws which the courts interpret per the Constitution (which even 51% cannot over turn) and the executive branch carries out, i.e. executes (get it?).
If the law says round up illegal immigrants and kick them out, that is the President’s sworn duty even if he thinks it takes a wall.
Don’t like it? Take it up with those representatives and CHANGE THE LAW!!!!
Reagan did it with a stroke of his pen, no reason it can’t be done again.
Except it doesn’t solve the real problem, businesses breaking the laws to exploit de facto slavery.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
May 16, 2017 8:21 pm

Your a priori assumption is the respective governments required their citizens have at least a foundational civics education in their own governmental systems.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
May 17, 2017 7:02 am

That’s pretty much nonsense. A democracy is where the government is elected by the vote of the people. Representative government meets that test.
But then you claim that people voluntarily working for a company are slaves so i should expect the opposite of facts and truth.

May 16, 2017 4:14 pm

We hade a decent prime minister in Stephen Harper, an economist by training, but Nooo, we had to jettison him if favour of the part-time drama coach. People never learn.

Reply to  Trebla
May 17, 2017 9:09 am

Harper wasn’t perfect. I didn’t like his continual deficit budgets. But he sure was a lot better than our part time night club security guard we have now.

May 16, 2017 4:33 pm

How can 7,000 tons(Max) of fuel create 23,000 tons of CO2 ?…N.U.T.S. !!

Reply to  Butch
May 16, 2017 4:36 pm

combining with oxygen.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  AndyG55
May 16, 2017 8:07 pm

Only true if the fuel is all carbon. It contains hydrogen, too, so the total waste products CO2 & H20 is less than 23 tons.

Reply to  Butch
May 16, 2017 4:43 pm

7,000 X 44/12 = 25.7, so somebody got short-changed.

Reply to  philincalifornia
May 16, 2017 4:44 pm

Maybe the hydrogen going to water? Depends on the fuel.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 16, 2017 5:02 pm

But the fuel is not purely Carbon !!

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 16, 2017 5:08 pm

Carbons atomic weight is 12.011…Oxygens atomic weight is 15.999…The math does not add up….

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 16, 2017 6:00 pm

Butch – 1 C 12 plus 2 O 32 = CO2 44

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 17, 2017 6:52 am

Carbon weighs about 12 times as much as hydrogen. There is hydrogen in the fuel, but it doesn’t weigh much.

Reply to  Butch
May 17, 2017 3:18 am

Jet Fuel is mostly Docadene (a.k.a. Kerosene) density is ~ 0.81( max) so 9100 liters weight 0.81×9100 kg ~ 7370 kg.
The molecular formula is C12H26 i.e. 12 carbon atoms combined to 26 hydrogen atoms form 1 molecule of the fuel.
When it burn (assuming complete burn ) it reacts with oxygen from the atmosphere acorrding to the following reaction equation:
2 C12H26(l) + 37 O2(g) → 24 CO2(g) + 26 H2O(g)
From this we can figure out that 2x(12×12 grams carbon + 26×1 gram Hydrogen ) = 340 grams fuel ( liquid ) react with enough oxygen to form 24x(12 gr. C + 2×16 gr. O ) = 24×44 grams CO2 = 1056 grams CO2.
The weight ratio of fuel to co2 is therefore 1056/340 ~ 3.106 , and 7230 tons of jetfuel burning form 3.106*7370 tons of co2 or 22.891 tons of co2 , close enough to sayl it’s roughly 23 tons (or few teaspoonfulls short of that if you want to quibble).

May 16, 2017 4:40 pm

“Bill McKibben
Donald Trump is a creep and unpleasant to look at, but at least he’s not a stunning hypocrite when it comes to climate change.”
Let’s fix this shall we – “Bill McKibben is a creep and unpleasant to look at, and he’s a stunning hypocrite when it comes to climate change.”.
350 ppm is just peachy kids, but if I get paid to say that 400 ppm causes (mythical) hurricanes to hit the U.S., I’ll prostitute myself for that noble cause.

Javert Chip
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 16, 2017 8:23 pm

I saw what you did there, you sly devil, you.

May 16, 2017 4:43 pm

Trudeau and Gore are born politicians. Hypocrisy and corruption are in their DNA

May 16, 2017 4:59 pm

Carbon restraint is for the little people.

May 16, 2017 5:02 pm

The Aga Khan’s private island. Mr. Trudeau picks his friends well.
At least Mr. Khan is an Ismaili Muslim, which tends to be a more peaceful shia sect. That’s mostly because it’s open to re-interpretations of the Qur’an by their chief imam — Mr. Khan. that makes Ismaili Islam rather a bit like a protestant sect of Christianity, open to setting aside the worst horrors among the commands of the holy writ.
This has allowed modern secular ideas to enter into Ismaili Islam. Because of this, Sunni Muslims despise Ismailis, which is another positive recommendation of the sect.
So, mush-brained as he is about Islam, Trudeau’s personal choices of brocade pigstys have him wallowing in luxury among the more moderate of Muslims. After all, he could have wallowed with the Saudis or the Qataris, luxury-loving jihad-sponsors all.

Reply to  Pedric
May 16, 2017 8:27 pm

“Mr. Khan. that makes Ismaili Islam rather a bit like a protestant sect of Christianity, open to setting aside the worst horrors among the commands of the holy writ.”
What “horrors among the commands of the holy writ” are you talking about?

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 16, 2017 8:35 pm

(I mean the Christian Book)

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 16, 2017 9:26 pm

As a Christian do you deny and repudiate the OT, JohnKnight?

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 16, 2017 10:10 pm

“As a Christian do you deny and repudiate the OT, JohnKnight?” I have no idea what you mean by “repudiate” (or deny, really), Pedric, . What God specifically commanded the Israelites to do thousands of years ago has little to do with anyone now, if that’s what you mean . . But, you contrasted Protestants to someone else, presumably Catholics, so let’s here about the “horrors among the commands of the holy writ” that they obey which Protestants don’t.

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 17, 2017 7:02 am

John, you can’t expect atheists to actually know something about religion.

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 17, 2017 9:03 am

With respect to Catholics, JohnKnight, Protestants put aside Matt 16:18, disallowing the centralist totalitarianism of the Catholic Church. This allowed Protestants to go their own way, opening up Christianity to external secular ideas of individual rights and human dignity outside of dogmatic adherence.
It’s nice to have a sunset law on god’s writ, isn’t it, i.e., What God specifically commanded the Israelites to do thousands of years ago has little to do with anyone now.
No more death for daring to question a prelate (Deut. 17:12), no more killing of witches (Ex. 22:17), no more death for violating sabbath (Ex 31:14), no more death for cursing one’s parents (Lev. 20:9), etc., etc. One can only approve.
One supposes that eventually, after the appropriate time has passed, you’ll sunset, too, whatever parts of the NT you decide that have “little to do with anyone.”
You’re a modern secularized person yourself, JohnKnight, though apparently without knowing it, deciding for yourself what parts of the Bible to believe, and what parts to put aside; deciding when god was mistaken. More authority than god. Imagine that.

Reply to  Pedric
May 17, 2017 9:10 am

No. The requirements were changed back in 30-33 AD. By the Author of the original document Himself.
JohnKnight is properly following Rev1 of the original procedure in the OT (original text?). We do not have a Rev2. Yet. (Your source is out-of-date, prejudicially out-of-date, perhaps deliberately so.)

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 17, 2017 9:50 am

Whatever recommendations were pretty non-specific, weren’t they, RACook. Convenient, that. One is left able to dismiss whatever parts of the Old Testament (OT) one finds embarrassing.

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 17, 2017 1:23 pm

So, you don’t really know of any “horrors among the commands of the holy writ” which Catholics (or by implication Protestants) obey, right? Just being . . friendly, huh? ; )
“No more death for daring to question a prelate (Deut. 17:12)…”
Well, here’s the context;
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose;
And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.

So, please tell us what would you have had them do if someone simply refused to comply with the rulings of any of the society’s legal authorities?

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 17, 2017 4:19 pm

JohnKnight, I listed several such horrors. There are plenty more.
You conveniently set them aside by implicitly denying the OT; effectively putting your authority above god’s. That’s hardly the sign of a good Catholic.
Do you deny that Catholicism enforced Ex. 22:17 right up through 1800? Every burned heretic exemplified Catholic adherence to Deut. 17:12.
While and where religion reigned, that behavior never changed.
That Catholicism and Protestantism have set these abuses aside is strictly due to the rise of reason as a guide to legal behavior during the 17th century, culminating in the Enlightenment. In its 1500 year history, Catholicism was unable to reform itself. Nor was Protestantism. One merely need look at Luther’s murderous writings and rulings to know that.
Your religion, in other words, owes it newly civil behavior to strictly secular reasoned humanism.
As to your context, it does nothing to ameliorate that contradicting a prelate brings the death penalty. Their “legal authority,” as you have it, concerned obedience to religious law, not secular law.

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 17, 2017 5:24 pm

No response? ?
” … I listed several such horrors.”
It’s not a horror, it’s the rule of law . . though I suppose to some that’s disquieting ; )
“While and where religion reigned, that behavior never changed.”
Or, you’ve indoctrinated to believe such hyperbolic talk-talk . . and the question follows, it seems to me; As opposed to what? Atheistic Munchkins? Sir, there’s not so much as any trace of any atheistic/non-religious societies (that I am aware of) until rather recently . .
(And in just one century they managed to murder about two hundred million people . . and effectively enslave several billion . . Might be a clue in the mystery of the missing ancient atheist societies, me thinks . . such friendly folk ; )

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 17, 2017 6:37 pm

JohnKnight, you offer a murderous religious dogma as “rule of law.” That’s rich. Your ideal is in view today in Iran; an example we can all admire.
The “atheistic” societies you put on offer were rule of your kind of law: secular religions with the same dogmatic impositions and thought police.
Marx as prophet, Das Kapital as holy book, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao as infallible popes. Paul Blanshard makes this equation explicit in his, Communism, Democracy, and Catholic Power. The analogy is perfect.
A similar case could be made for Nazism: Adolph Hitler and Mein Kampf, but no secular pope managed to follow on.
An atheistic society would be set up along the principles of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Spinoza, and Voltaire, dedicated to the rights of the individual, to personal freedom, and to civic tolerance. Let’s see such a society sink into despotism and murder. That would be the test of your proposition. Never has such a society existed, although the US Constitution comes close.
US law is godless, JohnKnight. That, and only that, is why the various domestic religions can co-exist in peace.

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 18, 2017 11:52 am

“JohnKnight, you offer a murderous religious dogma as “rule of law.” ”
You either answer the question I asked about that, or I see no reason to discuss anything with you, Pedric. If you can’t conduct actual discussion/dialog in a rational manner, I conclude you’re dishonest or otherwise not well in the head.
“So, please tell us what would you have had them do if someone simply refused to comply with the rulings of any of the society’s legal authorities?”

Reply to  JohnKnight
May 19, 2017 9:01 am

I answered you plainly, JohnKnight. Catholics burnt witches and murdered heretics based on the biblical injunctions I mentioned. This, you call “rule of law.”
I pointed out that Catholics stopped their abuses only when reason and science came to dominate society.
I addressed your claims, while you have failed to address any of mine. One of us may be dishonest, but it’s not I.
Pius IX’s Syllabus of Condemned Opinions denies freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom from the police power of the church, and Catholics continue to defend it.
I have asked priests about this syllabus and they’ve equivocated and refused to disown it. The logic of oppression, and the desire to exert it, remain as strong as ever in the Catholic Church, restrained only by the strength of civil society.
Your “rule of law” is the banal arrogation of tyranny.

May 16, 2017 5:10 pm

On 7 November 2013, Trudeau attended a fundraiser that the Liberal Party described as a “ladies’ night” involving “cocktails, candid conversation, and curiosity-inducing ideas.” Before this fawning and adulatory group of female supporters, the moderator asked Trudeau: “Which nation, besides Canada, which nation’s administration do you most admire?”
Trudeau, basking in the glow of the audience’s uncritical adoration, replied:
“There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime, and say, ‘we need to go greenest fastest,’ y’know, ‘we need to start investing in solar.’ There is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about, of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted, uh, that I find quite interesting.”

Justin Trudeau Has A “Basic Dictatorship” Problem
More from Trudopia…
“And the budget will balance itself.”

Reply to  clipe
May 16, 2017 6:17 pm
May 16, 2017 5:50 pm

One thing not mentioned in this article is the fact that Trudeau has jetted around the world at least ten times since he became prime-minister 2 years ago. In fact during the last 5 by elections he has flown from Ottawa to Montreal to pick up the head of the federal liberal party and then to the different rallies held in each of the different ridngs. Four of the by elections were in western Canada. One day in each doing an appearance and then back to Ottawa. The waste and the extreme carbon footprint by this two faced liar is typical for the “Green” crowd. Trudeau fits in well with the likes of Gore and DiCaprio.

Edward Katz
May 16, 2017 6:02 pm

No one should expect Canada to meet its Paris climate commitments in the first place since Canadians are among the least likely people on the planet to make major changes to their lifestyles to fight climate change. The country is just too far-flung, the climate is too cold and the people are just too comfortable the way they are already. A good example is with electric cars. Canada generates close to 60% of its electricity from hydro, so one would figure electric vehicles would catch on quickly here. After Tesla launched its Model S about a decade ago, pundits claimed that by 2020 one-quarter, or 6.5 million, of the vehicles on Canadian roads would be electrics. The reality is that a mere 15,000 fall into this category.

Lee L
Reply to  Edward Katz
May 16, 2017 8:48 pm

Well you see it’s a little bit like Minnesota in winter. Get into your electric car in winter with the electric heater on and when the battery hardly works in the cold anyway you drive toward your place after a late meal In town. The range of your electric smugmobile, exaggerated in the brochures as it was, now is greatly reduced due to reality and the freezing cold. You don’t make it home. You get stuck out in the middle of nowhere with no gas in the tank to get a pile of tires burning. And in many parts of Canada, cell service gets spotty a certain distance outside of town. It isn’t at all a joke anymore when the possibility that you might freeze to death looms its ugly head.
That’s maybe one reason nobody buys the things.

Reply to  Lee L
May 17, 2017 7:59 am

Eventually, they will buy the things but the cars must first be competitive with gasoline cars.
To compete, e-cars must be significantly less expensive and the batteries need to be at least five-fold better than they are now. For example, the batteries must hold 400 miles of juice, they must work fine in deep cold weather and they must recharge in minutes not hours.
That’s a tall order and a long way off.

Reply to  Edward Katz
May 17, 2017 3:55 am

I expect a somewhat hockey stick shaped curve as you rapidly transition from 15,000 to 6 million in 3 years. Oh Canada!

Reply to  Edward Katz
May 17, 2017 6:44 am

put your cell phone fully charged into the freezer overnight. now try and play a movie and see how long the battery lasts.
now head out at night in winter in Canada on battery power. you will barely have enough juice to run the heater let alone run the vehicle. unless you packed blankets and survival gear, you will be the ice cube in the freezer by morning.

May 16, 2017 6:16 pm

Jet fuel is a complex blend of hydrocarbons so it’s not a simple calculation.
Here is an illustrative example.
n-hexane is C6H14.
Per mol wts 6 * 12 + 14 * 1 = 86. C = 72/86 = 83.7%
8.2 tonnes of n-hexane is 83.7% C or 6.87 tonnes carbon.
One tonne carbon produces 3.67 * C tonne or
8.2 tonnes of n-hexane produces 25.2 tonnes CO2

Jeff Labute
May 16, 2017 6:32 pm

With Canada’s wide open spaces and long distances between any point A and B, plus batteries don’t like cold weather, and the cost of any electric vehicle is prohibitive, we like gas and diesel 🙂
Solar intensity is much less up north too. Oh yeah, and there’s no wind, at all. lol.

Reply to  Jeff Labute
May 16, 2017 6:45 pm
Reply to  clipe
May 17, 2017 8:01 am

And the idiot ontario liberals want to shut down nuclear. The only reason wind can be seen on the graph is because hydro is shut down on low demand days to allow wind operators to profit. Niagara Falls, greatest natural hydro resource in the world, (no dam) is bypassed regularly

Bryan A
Reply to  Jeff Labute
May 16, 2017 7:25 pm

‘Bout the only real way to make electric vehicles function over long distances without the need to recharge would be through induction though it would require even more electricity be produced to transmit high voltage beneath every road surface

Ron Williams
May 16, 2017 7:28 pm

This story is bit of a ruse by PM Justin Trudeau to play both sides of the fence to appear to be tough on Big Oil while appearing to be sympathetic to the environmental movement. The theory is that if both sides are mad, then he is doing his job. However, he hasn’t really done a whole lot for big oil. One day in eastern Canada he is spouting that Canada will have to wean itself off fossil fuels, and the next day he is giving a speech to the Calgary Petroleum Club saying that no country on earth would discover 100 billion barrels of oil and just leave it in the ground. And then of course his national carbon tax of $50 a ton which will do major harm to the economy, especially competing against US interests that have no carbon tax.
JT has also just introduced legislation to ban all oil tanker traffic on the northern BC west coast, effectively ensuring that no oil transport will occur mid coast even if the oil arrives by train. This after he killed the Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat. What the fuss is about is his approval of the twinning of the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline. The route has had a pipeline for 64 years already, and a new pipe to the current high standards will be be buried in the existing right of way. It will have more capacity, which means more tanker traffic through the port of Vancouver which has upset all the socialist snowflakes in Vancouver.
The watermelons got their carbon tax, and other than the replacement of Line 3 oil existing pipeline from Edmonton to Superior, Wisconsin, there is nothing else to talk about. Trump was the one who got Keystone resurrected, so hard to blame JT for that. I think it is great he is getting blowback from the watermelons, since maybe that will be the wakeup call that he needs to see that he is no win situation with the hard core enviro’s who were expecting we would just abandon oil by now. Yeah right…not going to happen and if Trudeau has plans to get re-elected, he better support jobs and the economy first.

May 16, 2017 7:35 pm

Canada is a complicated place and it’s a miracle that it hasn’t broken up. It nearly did. link
Quebec isn’t the only problem, there’s also western alienation. The list of tensions is rather long.
Trudeau has a nasty balancing act. CAGW is popular in Quebec and British Columbia. Alberta’s oil kept the country floating along nicely while the rest of the world suffered through the aftermath of 2008.
I think Trudeau learned a lot from his father’s mistakes. You have to say the right things to the right people and, above all, avoid starting fights. It looks like hypocrisy but it’s actually survival.

Reply to  commieBob
May 17, 2017 2:12 am

That type of survival is only short term.
Pretty soon you are seen as unreliable by everyone, then everyone is out gunning for you, and no one has your back.

Reply to  Felflames
May 17, 2017 7:45 am

Yep. A Canadian prime minister can usually hope for a couple of terms. link Trudeau Jr’s dad did about fifteen years but the west hated him especially after the National Energy Program that the folks in Alberta saw as a complete rip off.

Reply to  commieBob
May 17, 2017 6:04 am

Thanks, that helps to understand the situation. I hope Chelsea Clinton is not studying him. There is already enough low brow legacy nepotism around in politics and business. These legacy child politicians really represent the last gasp of hope for failed party power lust.

Reply to  Resourceguy
May 17, 2017 1:21 pm

These legacy child politicians really represent the last gasp of hope for failed party power lust.

I think that’s exactly what happened here. The Liberal Party was on the verge of extinction. The old guys went to Trudeau Jr. but he said he didn’t feel old enough. They said, take it now or there won’t be a party to lead when you are old enough. link

May 16, 2017 7:48 pm

The issue here is not JT’s hypocrisy so much as the fact that the Auditor General cannot find any subsidies for the fossil fuel industry in Canada. If there were subsidies, they would be documented and the Auditor General would not need to ask for them. What he has asked for – and been refused to date – is the definition of an “inefficient subsidy” which is what he is tasked with identifying in order to cost the governments promises.
In all of the fuss, somone has finally come out and said it – the fossil fuel industry gets nothing more than the standard tax deduction on investments, which are considered to be efficient “subsidies” because they result in a bigger tax take in increased economic activity.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Rob
May 16, 2017 8:31 pm

So the canadian population’s center of gravity is at about the same latitude as that wonderful example of renewable energy – Germany? Why can’t Canada simply do what Germany is doing to become carbon-free.
Oops – wait a minute – never mind…
(/S if you need it)

May 16, 2017 8:19 pm

Justin Trudeau has only one place in his heart … and in that place is only Justin Trudeau.

May 16, 2017 8:39 pm

Ah yes, just another ‘do as I say, not as I do’ champagne socialist.
I’m sure when they fly in to their frequent ‘climate change’ conferences they all have a really good fossil fuel-powered knees-up at our expense, while laughing up their sleeve.
The only good thing about their rank hypocrisy is that it’s starting to get the swivel-eyed global warming hoaxers foaming at the mouth, like old Weepy Bill McKibben there.

Harry Passfield
May 17, 2017 1:17 am

We found that Finance Canada still had not defined what an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy was

Do they mean, a subsidy for inefficient fossil fuel; or an inefficient subsidy for fossil fuel?

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 17, 2017 2:13 am

He’s only doing what everyone does – best described as Jevons Paradox or in an article in the Gruaniad or the Torygraph some while ago as ‘The Rebound Effect’
It goes along the lines that, after maybe a full year of scrimping, scraping and ‘saving energy’, many folks have the technology (being forced upon us by Govm’t) to know that we have ‘saved energy’ over the last 12 months and maybe even, exactly how much.
Of course, it took work and effort so these folks (rightly) think they deserve a reward for their effort. And why not, they have been good model citizens exactly as demanded by Government.
So, after saving fuel driving carefully in a car the Gov declare is ‘economical’, they maybe drive a lot further than they might, they may even buy another car.
Or they’ll fly to Florida for annual vacation rather than the usual Benidorm or Canaries.
And why the fook not? They deserve their little extra for 2 weeks after 50 weeks of self/Government imposed deprivation.
Little knowing that their 747 burns 2 tons of Kerosene as it rolls around Heathrow, *just* getting ready for take-off on the departure leg of their trip. All their savings are defenestrated there and then.
Its not the people’s fault. It is, how can Governments be so out of touch with how real people behave?

May 17, 2017 3:38 am

It seems so simple to me. In each country, if you vote for ‘green policies’ you pay the extra tax involved.
Each barrel of oil +1 dollar or euro or pound
Each gallon of gas +1 dollar or euro or pound
Obviously this will reflect in higher utility costs and increased food costs .
To make it simple and efficient for green minded individuals to pay their dues, their income tax could just be increased by 50%. Job done!
So easy!

May 17, 2017 4:13 am

…And I thought Hillary was bad.

Steve from Rockwood
May 17, 2017 4:19 am

As I am led to believe the concept of “fossil fuel subsidies” is essentially a short list of two things.
1. The oil company can write off their costs of drilling a well in the same year it is drilled rather than having to write it off over a period of years as is common with depreciating assets. This “subsidy” promotes the drilling of more wells.
2. Critics of fossil fuels claim they are damaging the environment and that the cost of that damage is not being taken into account (as a tax on oil profits, for example). The oil companies are therefore being subsidized by not having to pay a tax to offset the damage of their product.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
May 17, 2017 7:08 am

Yes, not paying a tax is defined as a “subsidy” by those who want to damn certain activities.
This you and I are not getting a subsidy for our work because we pay tax. But I do get a subsidy (in the UK0 on my children’s clothes and my newspaper because there’s no VAT on those.
Quite how paying a tax to the government is the same as receiving money from the government are the same is beyond me.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
May 17, 2017 7:09 am

The first is only a subsidy in the sense that they get all their money in the first year instead of letting the government hold onto part of it for several years.
Their multi-year tax bill doesn’t change by one penny.

May 17, 2017 5:59 am

Blocking auditors is criminal. Impeach him.

michael hart
May 17, 2017 6:25 am

“We found that Finance Canada still had not defined what an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy was, nor could the department tell us how many inefficient fossil fuel subsidies there could be,” Ferguson said in prepared remarks.

Well I can put him right for free. There are NO net fossil subsidies. Fossil fuels pay large amounts of taxes. Fossil fuels make the world go round. It’s not that difficult.
With a bit of work, we can achieve the same with nuclear. Nothing else comes close.

May 17, 2017 6:39 am

Best Just-in comment I noted this year:

Murphy Slaw
May 17, 2017 7:51 am

What were we thinking when we voted this dude in?

May 17, 2017 9:21 am

The answer is obvious, the solution! How to do it.
The Canadian people do not understand the long term or the short term.
If they did, Trudeau would not be where he is..
This is the sickness of our western world that we are ” all comfortable, don’t rock the boat”!
If some clever farseeing folk can describe the dangers, perhaps we can still manage the situation.
I wish I knew how.

Bro. Steve
May 17, 2017 9:21 am

But he’s so pretty!

May 17, 2017 9:27 am

I for one am happy Trudeau is a hypocrite on this issue: less taxes… wait until Green monger Andrew Weaver becomes the kind maker in the province of British Columbia…

Ron Williams
Reply to  TomRude
May 17, 2017 11:03 am

Let’s hope the recount and mail in ballots for a few of the ridings for last weeks election goes to the BC Liberals next week so as we don’t have a hung parliament dictated by Andrew Weaver (infamous IPCC lead author) of the Green Party. He will put BC back into the stone age. And I am not talking Mary Jane stone age…that is JT’s department.

Joel Snider
May 17, 2017 12:16 pm

Hypocrisy is one of the primary Greenie/Progressive character traits – absolute and without fail.

May 17, 2017 11:22 pm

Yesterday I attended a meeting where I was again reminded that the Canadian people elected our Prime Minister because he is a man of integrity and ethics.

R. de Haan
May 18, 2017 3:33 pm

Canada is run by morons.
The entire scam will soon be covered up by a two mile thick ice cap for the next 100.000 years.
Great to see they have their priorities right.

%d bloggers like this: