In principle, a sovereign fund is a fantastic idea that we should have done long ago.
In the specifics, I’m a bit concerned about how it’s being set up, because I don’t trust that “major projects of national interest” won’t be narrowly defined as “fossil fuel infrastructure”.
These are the projects that have been officially acknowledged so far, per the CBC:
The Sisson Mine, for critical minerals, in New Brunswick.
The Crawford Nickel project in Ontario.
The Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas project in British Columbia.
An Iqaluit hydro project.
The Nouveau Monde Graphite Phase 2 project in Quebec.
The Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor in northwest B.C. and Yukon., which could include critical minerals and clean power transmission developments in the area.
The North Coast Transmission Line in northwest B.C.
Certainly all industrial infrastructure, but not necessarily for fossil fuels.
The Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas project in British Columbia.
That one is, but there are also issues of geopolitics and strategic economics involved. I think the key rebuttal is whether it is “narrowly defined as fossil fuel infrastructure” which we can clearly see it is not, nor should it be. I don’t think it can realistically exclude fossil fuel infrastructure given how much of it underpins our economy and position in the world at this particular moment in history, but I will certainly be happy to see a lot these non-fossil-fuel infrastructure projects get built.
Yeah, and the LNG terminal expansion isn’t really that bad for the environment either. Developing countries still have a few decades to switch to complete renewables.
Natural gas is the most environmentally friendly non renewable energy source out there. I mean it does emit CO2 (which is bad ofc, but it emits around 50%), but that’s all it emits. The other ones are even worse. That’s why Europe switched to natural gas as an intermediary source of energy (especially for backup power, when solar can’t generate anything). It’s highly likely that Asia would want to do the same.
Someone has to supply this. That “someone” is us. The LNG terminal expansion helps us do this.
Oooh thank you so much for linking it! Was quite an interesting watch.
Here’s a resource from the Canadian government in regards to this. Basically, the government says it has improved regulations to reduce methane emissions and that it is taking actions to enforce these regulations better (through improved methane emissions detection) and is cooperating with international partners (which includes the EU) for the same.
Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on this and would love an opinion piece from a climate researcher who doesn’t have a conflict of interest. However, to my untrained eye, it looks like the “good bridge fuel” isn’t totally a con (at least for Canadian gas?).
There’s a few other projects that are big ticket items that there would need to be federal money for. Thinking things like the Toronto - Quebec City high speed rail, the port expansion at Churchill, the space launch site in Nova Scotia. Pretty sure the major port in BC (the container port, not the LNG/oil one) is looking to expand too. Then there’s the Ring of Fire mining projects in northern Ontario. That would for sure involve the federal government, since it touches the “critical minerals” issue and directly involved Native relations.
Your downvoters must have already forgotten about the ‘Green Slush Fund’ (Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) program) the one that the Liberals refused to reveal the details of where the billion dollars went even after Parliament demanded the books be opened. Eventually the Auditor General found that Liberal appointees to the fund gave $400 million tax dollars to their own companies, involving 186 conflicts of interest. We call this Green Slush Fund for a reason. Imagine how much more accountable they’ll be with 30 billion.
In principle, a sovereign fund is a fantastic idea that we should have done long ago.
In the specifics, I’m a bit concerned about how it’s being set up, because I don’t trust that “major projects of national interest” won’t be narrowly defined as “fossil fuel infrastructure”.
These are the projects that have been officially acknowledged so far, per the CBC:
Certainly all industrial infrastructure, but not necessarily for fossil fuels.
That one is, but there are also issues of geopolitics and strategic economics involved. I think the key rebuttal is whether it is “narrowly defined as fossil fuel infrastructure” which we can clearly see it is not, nor should it be. I don’t think it can realistically exclude fossil fuel infrastructure given how much of it underpins our economy and position in the world at this particular moment in history, but I will certainly be happy to see a lot these non-fossil-fuel infrastructure projects get built.
Yeah, and the LNG terminal expansion isn’t really that bad for the environment either. Developing countries still have a few decades to switch to complete renewables.
Natural gas is the most environmentally friendly non renewable energy source out there. I mean it does emit CO2 (which is bad ofc, but it emits around 50%), but that’s all it emits. The other ones are even worse. That’s why Europe switched to natural gas as an intermediary source of energy (especially for backup power, when solar can’t generate anything). It’s highly likely that Asia would want to do the same.
Someone has to supply this. That “someone” is us. The LNG terminal expansion helps us do this.
The issue with LNG is that the environmental math doesn’t account for all the natural gas that escapes into the air before it’s burned.
I know a video of this length is a hard ask, but it’s very well done and I think worth your time: https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw
Oooh thank you so much for linking it! Was quite an interesting watch.
Here’s a resource from the Canadian government in regards to this. Basically, the government says it has improved regulations to reduce methane emissions and that it is taking actions to enforce these regulations better (through improved methane emissions detection) and is cooperating with international partners (which includes the EU) for the same.
Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on this and would love an opinion piece from a climate researcher who doesn’t have a conflict of interest. However, to my untrained eye, it looks like the “good bridge fuel” isn’t totally a con (at least for Canadian gas?).
There’s a few other projects that are big ticket items that there would need to be federal money for. Thinking things like the Toronto - Quebec City high speed rail, the port expansion at Churchill, the space launch site in Nova Scotia. Pretty sure the major port in BC (the container port, not the LNG/oil one) is looking to expand too. Then there’s the Ring of Fire mining projects in northern Ontario. That would for sure involve the federal government, since it touches the “critical minerals” issue and directly involved Native relations.
I just figured it was to funnel money to Liberal Party donors as usual.
Your downvoters must have already forgotten about the ‘Green Slush Fund’ (Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) program) the one that the Liberals refused to reveal the details of where the billion dollars went even after Parliament demanded the books be opened. Eventually the Auditor General found that Liberal appointees to the fund gave $400 million tax dollars to their own companies, involving 186 conflicts of interest. We call this Green Slush Fund for a reason. Imagine how much more accountable they’ll be with 30 billion.
That’s precisely the one I was thinking about.
But downvoting the truth without a word in rebuttal is a time-honored tradition in this comm.
No way Brookfield will benefit from this fund.
/s
I mean, it sounds almost exactly like what Brookfield was pitching in 2024:
https://financialpost.com/fp-finance/brookfield-ottawa-major-pensions-being-discussed