Given everything going on these days, this piece by Jeffrey Simpson from >10 years ago—inspired by Obama’s first inaugural speech— is particularly salient: "In a world full of rights, we ignore our responsibilities" theglobeandmail.com/opinion/in-a-w…#cdnpoli#COVIDCanada
“ ‘rights' talk is often about what the state owes us by way of protection against itself or in affirming obligations that the state must fulfill toward us; whereas talk of "responsibility" reminds us of what we owe each other, what we owe the society that incorporates us…"
“... what we owe the country of which we are a part, and the world of which we are a member.”
"Rights are fundamentally about me; responsibility is mostly about us.”
Words to live by—always, but especially now.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This piece by @merransmith & Mark Zacharias raises important Qs about possible opportunity costs of more LNG in BC: how we best use our clean electricity. vancouversun.com/opinion/mark-z… It's not an argument against electrifying any additional LNG (incl a possible 2nd phase 1/ #bcpoli
@merransmith of LNG Canada), which would be essential to having any hope of achieving the province's climate targets, but rather raises the Q of whether BC cld do this AND electrify other industries, not to mention heat for buildings & a rapidly growing # of EVs. We will only be able to 2/
@merransmith build so much new electricity so fast - what is its highest value use recognizing electrification can reduce emissions & energy costs & support economic dev't?
A possible hierarchy could look like: 1) Meet the needs of BCians & biz/industries that are increasingly choosing to 3/
"CAPP must do a much better job of talking to the investment community about its own net-zero goals, & the industry’s swath of investments in clean & emissions-reducing technologies.”
The problem isn’t the storytelling, it’s the story.
Let’s start with net zero goals. 1/ #cdnpoli
None of CAPP’s members have goals aligned with the Net Zero Standard for Oil & Gas, which is backed by >20 global investors with ~$10 trillion of assets under management. greenbiz.com/article/whats-…
Why not? They refuse to include the pollution from burning their product.
2/
How about investments in clean & emissions-reducing tech?
Don’t just give us dollar numbers, put it in context.
IEA estimates this will only account for ~5% of upstream spending in 2022 (mostly thanks to European co’s)—95% to sustaining & increasing fossil fuel production. 3/
Yes! —> "Canada needs a new breed of corporate champion, & clean energy is the place to look” But I’d expand the definition of “clean energy” beyond renewables to include efficiency & zero emission end use technologies. We already have champions, but... 1/ theglobeandmail.com/business/artic…
The only way hydrogen might serve as anything other than a short-lived “lifeline” for O&G in Canada is if there is laser-like focus on producing the cleanest H in the world. bloomberg.com/news/articles/… Slapping carbon capture & storage on SMR (“blue”) hydrogen isn’t... 1/ #cdnpoli
…& transportation emissions (steel, heavy-duty trucks, shipping and cement) forbes.com/sites/mikescot… & we are well-positioned to be a significant exporter. belfercenter.org/sites/default/… How big is the opportunity? IHS Markit: "The greater the degree of a decarbonization...” 3/
A timely #ResilientRecovery piece. It’s notable how Europeans (Germans especially) are considering their stimulus/recovery plans: “The decision on what policies to support shouldn’t be purely based on deep economic analysis, but it should also take into account …" 1/
“...future trajectories and needs.” bloomberg.com/news/articles/… Relative to 2008-09, “This time there’s one big opportunity and one big enabler: The opportunity is to build competitive advantage in new industries; the enabler is cheap debt.” 2/
It’s critical to note that just throwing $ at hydrogen would fail. The fundamental challenge rests with the fact that to enable hydrogen requires systems-planning (producing, moving and using it) & new regulatory frameworks to accommodate a new energy commodity. We have… 3/
Well this is a demonstrably bad take. There are a multitude of ways—other than raising the price on carbon pollution—in which the gov’t can deliver a green recovery without micromanaging “winning” technologies. Contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism is just lazy. 1/ #cdnpoli
Building codes set energy performance benchmarks. Ditto vehicle emission standards. But gov’t, through stimulus, can enable more retrofits and more clean vehicle sales. The same goes for various industrial sectors—cement, steel, etc. Nobody is suggesting picking specific tech. 2/
Looking at recovery strictly through a lens of job creation, a green recovery delivers more effectively. With the co-benefit of reduced pollution—helping fight climate & reducing healthcare costs. See: smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/w… & mckinsey.com/business-funct… 3/