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.
You can cut down the calculation to the difference between standard and preferential rate and still have enough to build half a dozen geothermal/syngas plants along the Trans-Canada corridor, which will in turn provide a foundation for more industrial expansion and transport infrastructure the west so desperately needs, create tens of thousands of new, high productivity jobs, and future-proof us for generations as a global energy hub. Once they have made back the initial investment+interest, privatize them and let the market do its job, we just need that initial surge to reach escape velocity. You want a Western Canadian moon-shot that can bring the country together, there it is.
What on Earth are you ball parking the preferential rate, the commercial rate and the difference to come to that conclusion?
My back of the envelope math puts the cost of a half dozen projects at a less than ten million apiece. If you can’t find 10 million in funding for a profitable green tech in this day and age, that says there’s something sketchy about the projects.
Edit: Jesus, closer to 5 million. If you can’t find backers for a project that costs a little more than a year of goaltending from Tristan Jarry, that says a LOT about those projects.
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?
You can cut down the calculation to the difference between standard and preferential rate and still have enough to build half a dozen geothermal/syngas plants along the Trans-Canada corridor, which will in turn provide a foundation for more industrial expansion and transport infrastructure the west so desperately needs, create tens of thousands of new, high productivity jobs, and future-proof us for generations as a global energy hub. Once they have made back the initial investment+interest, privatize them and let the market do its job, we just need that initial surge to reach escape velocity. You want a Western Canadian moon-shot that can bring the country together, there it is.
What on Earth are you ball parking the preferential rate, the commercial rate and the difference to come to that conclusion?
My back of the envelope math puts the cost of a half dozen projects at a less than ten million apiece. If you can’t find 10 million in funding for a profitable green tech in this day and age, that says there’s something sketchy about the projects.
Edit: Jesus, closer to 5 million. If you can’t find backers for a project that costs a little more than a year of goaltending from Tristan Jarry, that says a LOT about those projects.