I never said it wouldn’t be profitable. I think if you managed to get started in the next year or so you’ll break even by 2035 and be running it net profit for a long time after that.
How long before Carney announces tax payers are going to pick up the tab to shut up the Alberta separatists?
If the first set of statements is true, then Canada would be wiser to invest in the damn thing itself, which is a far cry from picking up the tab.
It’s something like the oversimplified model of an atom we teach school children; good enough in general, but imprecise, and there’s a lot of factors it leaves out.
Obviously it’s a simplification. We aren’t running numbers on a theoretical project here. Come on. And if it isn’t good enough to attract private investment etc and oil and gas is… Well, I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.
I’m talking about the direct subsidies including failure to enforce our own laws and letting serial criminals make a mockery of us. I’m talking about actual waivers of legal consequences, direct and indirect corruption, and straight up cash infusions, tax waivers, and bailouts during tight seasons.
You are welcome to share a trustworthy resource that comes to similar findings but I’ve never seen anything like that from a reputable source. IMF is pretty decent and calculates the vast majority of the costs as externalities.
I’m talking about the direct subsidies including failure to enforce our own laws and letting serial criminals make a mockery of us. I’m talking about actual waivers of legal consequences, direct and indirect corruption, and straight up cash infusions, tax waivers, and bailouts during tight seasons.
You are welcome to share a trustworthy resource that comes to similar findings but I’ve never seen anything like that from a reputable source. IMF is pretty decent and calculates the vast majority of the costs as climate externalities. (ie, the tragedy of the commons.)
And right now, your entire claim seems to rest on this shadowy secret costs that are separate from the often cited climate externalities.
No, that’s a significant oversimplification of how markets and investments work.
You are similarly welcome to share why you believe you have a project that is a viable, long term profitable green energy approach that is simultaneously uninvestable. But so far, your only given reason is this nonsense that "we’re too obsessed with selling our fossil fuel reserves. " That’s not at all how markets work, not even in a simplified child’s model.
If the first set of statements is true, then Canada would be wiser to invest in the damn thing itself, which is a far cry from picking up the tab.
See there’s an issue with that. Remember I said it was going to create declining profits? It’s bad enough when it’s a private owner, do want to see what happens when a public crown corp loses 30% of its year-over-year revenue? Take a good hard look at Canada Post.
And if it isn’t good enough to attract private investment etc and oil and gas is… Well, I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.
If we stuck by that logic Canada would still be using whale oil and relying on carrier pigeons for communication. The rules of economics work funny here, because we are living next to the economic equivalent of a black hole. That means Canadian startups have a problem. Canadians don’t invest domestically unless it’s a guaranteed dividend. We don’t do angel investors and our banks are deeply risk averse. Meanwhile foreign investment tends to go south every time, because it’s a much bigger market with a gravitational pull that breaks the economic system of its neighbours. Historically, that means every time an emerging industry needs seed capital, they have to turn to the state. Everything from electricity, to telephone, to radio, and even our oil. Our oil sector started out as public, until we sold it off for some quick short-term gains. We do crown corps and public-private-partnerships for all kinds of things for a reason. Those markets couldn’t emerge naturally in this environment. So yes, we aren’t running theoretical numbers, but we do live at the extreme edge of the universe where the rules work funny.
Apologies, I meant to edit out the silly bits because I knew we’d get distracted.
Meant to just respond:
I’m talking about the direct subsidies including failure to enforce our own laws and letting serial criminals make a mockery of us. I’m talking about actual waivers of legal consequences, direct and indirect corruption, and straight up cash infusions, tax waivers, and bailouts during tight seasons.
You are welcome to share a trustworthy resource that comes to similar findings but I’ve never seen anything like that from a reputable source. IMF is pretty decent and calculates the vast majority of the costs as climate externalities. (ie, the tragedy of the commons.)
And right now, your entire claim seems to rest on this shadowy secret costs that are separate from the often cited climate externalities.
No, that’s a significant oversimplification of how markets and investments work.
You are similarly welcome to share why you believe you have a project that is a viable, long term profitable green energy approach that is simultaneously uninvestable. But so far, your only given reason is this nonsense that “we’re too obsessed with selling our fossil fuel reserves. " That’s not at all how markets work, not even in a simplified child’s model.
But to your points:
Take a good hard look at Canada Post.
Canada Post loses billions a year, that’s not making a profit by any model.
Canadians don’t invest domestically unless it’s a guaranteed dividend.
By your logic, almost no Canadian company should exist. Believe it or not, they do.
Canada Post loses billions a year, that’s not making a profit by any model.
Didn’t always. See what happens when legacy crown corps slip away into irrelevance?
By your logic, almost no Canadian company should exist. Believe it or not, they do.
I am also simplifying, there’s a complex web of motives, completely unrelated to profit, that influence how Canadians invest, but as a general trend we absolutely do not invest in emerging domestic industry. It’s got to be a proven market or it won’t get a second glance. There’s also a threshold above which domestic investment just wouldn’t cut it and relying on international cash means trying to land big backers to projects in a market 1/10th the size of our nearest neighbour. This is part of why no one is going to fund the pipelines. They’ll be profitable. They won’t get built unless we do it ourselves, and we won’t be able to sell it off to private markets before it becomes a boat anchor on our economy for a century.
I’m talking about the direct subsidies including failure to enforce our own laws and letting serial criminals make a mockery of us. I’m talking about actual waivers of legal consequences, direct and indirect corruption, and straight up cash infusions, tax waivers, and bailouts during tight seasons.
You are welcome to share a trustworthy resource that comes to similar findings but I’ve never seen anything like that from a reputable source. IMF is pretty decent and calculates the vast majority of the costs as climate externalities. (ie, the tragedy of the commons.)
And right now, your entire claim seems to rest on this shadowy secret costs that are separate from the often cited climate externalities.
No, that’s a significant oversimplification of how markets and investments work.
You are similarly welcome to share why you believe you have a project that is a viable, long term profitable green energy approach that is simultaneously uninvestable. But so far, your only given reason is this nonsense that “we’re too obsessed with selling our fossil fuel reserves. " That’s not at all how markets work, not even in a simplified child’s model.
And i the vast majority is counting loan guarantees and preferential rates as subsidies. And instead of calculating the subsidy as say, the difference between the standard and preferential rate, they’ve taken the entire loan value, which is some nonsense accounting, good for rabble rousing I guess but not applicable for even a child’s understanding of investment and subsidies.
Edit: Also, wildly, choosing to count funding green tech like carbon capture as a subsidy.
Carbon capture is dubiously green, there’s little evidence it’s more than kicking the can down the road, but hey so are tailing ponds and current “remediation” standards. We’re very good at overvaluing short term band-aids and not looking the bigger picture.
Okay, and the drastically overcounted billions as noted before?
And the vast majority is counting loan guarantees and preferential rates as subsidies. And instead of calculating the subsidy as say, the difference between the standard and preferential rate, they’ve taken the entire loan value, which is some nonsense accounting, good for rabble rousing I guess but not applicable for even a child’s understanding of investment and subsidies.
If the first set of statements is true, then Canada would be wiser to invest in the damn thing itself, which is a far cry from picking up the tab.
Obviously it’s a simplification. We aren’t running numbers on a theoretical project here. Come on. And if it isn’t good enough to attract private investment etc and oil and gas is… Well, I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.
You are welcome to share a trustworthy resource that comes to similar findings but I’ve never seen anything like that from a reputable source. IMF is pretty decent and calculates the vast majority of the costs as externalities.
You are welcome to share a trustworthy resource that comes to similar findings but I’ve never seen anything like that from a reputable source. IMF is pretty decent and calculates the vast majority of the costs as climate externalities. (ie, the tragedy of the commons.)
And right now, your entire claim seems to rest on this shadowy secret costs that are separate from the often cited climate externalities.
You are similarly welcome to share why you believe you have a project that is a viable, long term profitable green energy approach that is simultaneously uninvestable. But so far, your only given reason is this nonsense that "we’re too obsessed with selling our fossil fuel reserves. " That’s not at all how markets work, not even in a simplified child’s model.
Edit: Clarity.
See there’s an issue with that. Remember I said it was going to create declining profits? It’s bad enough when it’s a private owner, do want to see what happens when a public crown corp loses 30% of its year-over-year revenue? Take a good hard look at Canada Post.
If we stuck by that logic Canada would still be using whale oil and relying on carrier pigeons for communication. The rules of economics work funny here, because we are living next to the economic equivalent of a black hole. That means Canadian startups have a problem. Canadians don’t invest domestically unless it’s a guaranteed dividend. We don’t do angel investors and our banks are deeply risk averse. Meanwhile foreign investment tends to go south every time, because it’s a much bigger market with a gravitational pull that breaks the economic system of its neighbours. Historically, that means every time an emerging industry needs seed capital, they have to turn to the state. Everything from electricity, to telephone, to radio, and even our oil. Our oil sector started out as public, until we sold it off for some quick short-term gains. We do crown corps and public-private-partnerships for all kinds of things for a reason. Those markets couldn’t emerge naturally in this environment. So yes, we aren’t running theoretical numbers, but we do live at the extreme edge of the universe where the rules work funny.
Apologies, I meant to edit out the silly bits because I knew we’d get distracted.
Meant to just respond:
You are welcome to share a trustworthy resource that comes to similar findings but I’ve never seen anything like that from a reputable source. IMF is pretty decent and calculates the vast majority of the costs as climate externalities. (ie, the tragedy of the commons.)
And right now, your entire claim seems to rest on this shadowy secret costs that are separate from the often cited climate externalities.
You are similarly welcome to share why you believe you have a project that is a viable, long term profitable green energy approach that is simultaneously uninvestable. But so far, your only given reason is this nonsense that “we’re too obsessed with selling our fossil fuel reserves. " That’s not at all how markets work, not even in a simplified child’s model.
But to your points:
Canada Post loses billions a year, that’s not making a profit by any model.
By your logic, almost no Canadian company should exist. Believe it or not, they do.
Didn’t always. See what happens when legacy crown corps slip away into irrelevance?
I am also simplifying, there’s a complex web of motives, completely unrelated to profit, that influence how Canadians invest, but as a general trend we absolutely do not invest in emerging domestic industry. It’s got to be a proven market or it won’t get a second glance. There’s also a threshold above which domestic investment just wouldn’t cut it and relying on international cash means trying to land big backers to projects in a market 1/10th the size of our nearest neighbour. This is part of why no one is going to fund the pipelines. They’ll be profitable. They won’t get built unless we do it ourselves, and we won’t be able to sell it off to private markets before it becomes a boat anchor on our economy for a century.
Again… To the actual questions…
You are welcome to share a trustworthy resource that comes to similar findings but I’ve never seen anything like that from a reputable source. IMF is pretty decent and calculates the vast majority of the costs as climate externalities. (ie, the tragedy of the commons.)
And right now, your entire claim seems to rest on this shadowy secret costs that are separate from the often cited climate externalities.
You are similarly welcome to share why you believe you have a project that is a viable, long term profitable green energy approach that is simultaneously uninvestable. But so far, your only given reason is this nonsense that “we’re too obsessed with selling our fossil fuel reserves. " That’s not at all how markets work, not even in a simplified child’s model.
Oh, and as for the findings on direct subsidies, you can get a more nuanced breakdown here: https://environmentaldefence.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Canadas-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies.pdf
And i the vast majority is counting loan guarantees and preferential rates as subsidies. And instead of calculating the subsidy as say, the difference between the standard and preferential rate, they’ve taken the entire loan value, which is some nonsense accounting, good for rabble rousing I guess but not applicable for even a child’s understanding of investment and subsidies.
Edit: Also, wildly, choosing to count funding green tech like carbon capture as a subsidy.
Carbon capture is dubiously green, there’s little evidence it’s more than kicking the can down the road, but hey so are tailing ponds and current “remediation” standards. We’re very good at overvaluing short term band-aids and not looking the bigger picture.
Okay, and the drastically overcounted billions as noted before?