Climate change will push Canadian business onside

If what he says is true, Alberta better get its act together to get in on the renewables market or be left sitting with unexploitable oil sands and not much else. Maybe farming and ranching will get bigger as long as there's sufficient water.

But it's not true.



And yes, Lorrie Goldstein's "analysis" is worth every bit as much as Don Pitts. Personally, I'd say more, because Goldstein is more correct.

It wasn't a Don Pitts analysis, it was a World Bank analysis.

Was it? is that why it links to "More analysis by Don Pittis" at the bottom

The World Bank can say anything it wants about the BC carbon tax. I still burn gas, and don't know anybody who doesn't or who has plans to stop.

Although...ya know...it is true. I do walk a little more. So OK, local gas prices are so high, sometimes you'll walk, but will the gas fueled car therefore become the horse and buggy? There's no evidence to suggest that.

I hear there were a lot of Chevy Volts left on the lot last year though.

The price of food has skyrocketed too. The other day, I was walking through Super-Store and my jaw dropped. 4 bucks for 3 shriveled little ears of Mexican corn. No thank you, but that doesn't mean I've given up eating.

Actually, if you want to get technical Pittis is more supporting something called the Porter hypothesis than the World Bank's stilted report on the wonders of the BC carbon tax.

This is the Porter Hypothesis.

http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-11-01.pdf

The PH is saying "this is what can happen". The World bank report is saying oh look at this here in BC. Maybe that's what's happening here.

And Pittis is analyzing this a la CBC and saying "Yup, that's what's happening. No more cars."

What will you replace them with? Doesn't matter. "First you collect all the underpants... "

Where is this large reduction coming from? I always thought that BC was a heavy hydroelectric producer.
And as far as admonishing Alberta about getting on board with renewables, since when did natgas become a renewable? Or are you unaware of the approximately 7300 natgas wells that have been opened up in BC over the last decade? Like gee, maybe that's had something to do with their reportedly strong economic growth.

If the developing trend is that putting a value on carbon is now part of the price of doing business, no different than any other fee or tax, then that's just the way it is. If it's going to be a requirement in order to remove other political obstacles that are preventing important projects from moving forward then it's just a cost that has to be paid. No industry or state is an island and holding firm against a trend and ending up costing yourself jobs and revenue for the sake of sheer stubbornness doesn't make much sense at all.

BC has reduced carbon emissions because of its carbon tax, so presumably the reduction comes from many sources. What this has to do with hydroelectric is beyond me.

Na, natgas has gone way down in price. Our premier is desperately trying to get at least one natgas for export project off the ground, with no luck so far, because she had promised many projects and trillions of dollars at one time, Forestry is back up, tech is doing well, tourism is up from the low dollar.

If carbon fuels become surpassed by renewables, those natgas wells in BC will also fall silent. Fortunately we have a much more diversified economy, oil and gas has never been our mainstay.

That's awesome!!!!