Thread by @maxfawcett

I have a few questions about this column by Pamela Walling (@NoNonsensePW). calgaryherald.com/opinion/column…

First, a fact check. We've been told by any number of conservative politicians and pundits that the Clean Fuel Standard, which kicks in on July 1st, would drive up gasoline prices. Lots of them were even filling up on June 30th in anticipation of a price spike.

Whoops.

But sure, it'll eventually increase the price of gasoline a bit. That's....kind of the point? cbc.ca/news/canada/ca…

But anyways, back to Senator Wallin's op-ed. She writes, and I quote, "This is all part of Ottawa’s radical approach to try to change people’s behaviour (and their impact on the “climate”) by punishing them financially."

Those are her scare quotes around climate, not mine.

It's not the last time, either. "The CFS tax aims to reduce the so-called carbon intensity of gas and diesel by 15 per cent by 2030...."

I'm sorry, hold on -- "so-called carbon intensity"? Does she not think this is a thing?

She does the usual "nobody can afford an EV" thing, even though that's increasingly false -- and will only become more so.

Then: "Those who live in cold climates or in rural areas where there is no transit means have no option but to pay. This is discriminatory."

First of all, it's why there's a rural top-up on the carbon tax rebate. And second, if they could take transit, do you really think Ms. Wallin would be happy -- or would she be complaining that they're "forced" to ride the bus?

She finally arrives at her own destination, which is the new posture of ex-deniers: go slow.

"You can chase a climate-sensitive future with a more climate-cautious present.....the government’s timetable is unrealistic until there are alternatives in place."

This is, of course, total nonsense. The alternatives (EVs, heat pumps, renewable energy) exist and are being deployed at ever-increasing rates around the world, all while their costs continue to go down.

But folks like Ms. Wallin simply can't acknowledge any of this.

She finishes with this beauty:

"Canada still produces the cleanest energy in the world and we would do everyone a service by using our supply rather than importing dirty oil."

1) We don't (that's Norway).
2) We don't (the oil Canada imports has lower per-barrel emissions)

And then, this whopper: "perhaps they should set their sights on the actions of the bad actors – China’s emissions alone exceed those of all the developed nations combined!"

The "but China" argument is silly, as I've explained. But this is just straight-up factually wrong.

There are any number of good, useful, and interesting arguments about the pace and scale of the energy transition, and Canada's role in it.

But this column contained exactly none of them - instead, just obvious and easily debunked nonsense.

*Wallin.

Almost worth the $8 for the edit button.