Close Menu
    Politik

    Derzeit diskutieren 50 Länder – darunter Kanada – über den Ausstieg aus fossilen Brennstoffen

    Share.
    View 11 Comments

    11 Kommentare

    1. UnionGuyCanada on

      > „The conclusion is unavoidable: we must transition away from fossil fuels — not just because it’s good for climate, but because it strengthens our energy independence and security,“ said Stientje van Veldhoven, the Netherlands‘ minister for climate policy and green growth. The Netherlands is co-hosting the conference with Colombia.

        This is the future. Get pn board pr fall behind. Trump has just accelerated things with his actions. Fossil fuels will make big money in the short term, but the collapse of demand is coming, hopefully in time to save the climate for most people.

    2. Gintin2 on

      We’ve been ‚talking‘ about this for 40 years, I’m tired of O&G running this country and killing us. DO SOMETHING

    3. LazyImmigrant on

      Maybe Canada could start small and do something boring like, have cities with good public transit, homes with heat pumps and mini splits.

    4. limadeltah on

      We desperately need more nuclear, in combination with hydro and solar/wind where feasible.

      Problem is, only giant oligopolies with enormous regulatory departments staffed by insiders are willing/able to navigate our system and wait a decade+ for a permit that the court might end up throwing out anyway.

      Until we resolve the issues causing „regulatory uncertainty“ in this country, we’ll continue to rely on the same dinosaur industries to power us.

    5. mervolio_griffin on

      Friendly reminder that the EU-China formal CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism) is going live this year – https://www.china-briefing.com/news/eu-cbam-2026-china-based-manufacturing-impact-investment-strategy/ .

      This is a negotiated agreement between trading partners and given China’s vision for itself, is beneficial for their low-carbon production strategies. 

      People do not seem to fully appreciate that increased economic integration with Europe, and trade with China will mean buying in to carbon transition. I think of it this way – the more we drag our heels on this transition as China gains dominance as a major power and Europe solidifies itself as the de facto leader of liberal Western democracy, the more this will hurt our kids economically. 

      I’m not saying we immediately ban all fossil fuel development but we need to get aggressive and serious about devarbonization and planning for oil and gas workers just transitions. 

    6. Sir__Will on

      I hope we’re there and talking in good faith and not acting as the Saudi Arabia or oil company in the room and trying to downplay and sabotage everything. It’s not like COP so they don’t need to be unified on anything, but still.

    7. gracicot on

      Canada has ample talent in drilling, digging, fracking… there must be a way we can use our fossil talents and apply it for deep geothermal, innovate and sell our tech.

      Maybe also reboot our nuclear?

    8. callmecrude on

      > “we must transition away from fossil fuels – not just because it’s good for climate, but because it strengthens our energy independence and security” said Stientje van Veldhoven, the Netherlands’ minister for climate policy and green growth.

      Through that logic, Canada has very little reason to transition away from O&G. The Netherlands are a minority extractor of fossil fuels, and seismic activity in the North Sea is forcing their hand to transition away. If they don’t find alternatives then they’ll be left at the mercy of importing from Russia.

      That’s a very, VERY different reality to Canada’s. And to be clear, I’m saying this as someone who’s a massive proponent of nuclear and would love to see it comprise the majority of our national grid. But pragmatism is important when you’re talking about the scale and cost of these types of transitions. Many countries are not being forced to abandon O&G at the rate the Netherlands is. Our pace of adoption of green energy needs to be proportional to need rather than blindly adopting the same targets as someone who has drastically different needs.

      Carney’s push to build more pipelines, cut environmental regulations, expand our LNG extraction, and start up this new sovereign wealth fund to subsidize the oil fields isn’t going to make us very popular at these types of international meetings. But we are (hopefully) doing all of this to mimic the Norway green transition. Lean on our abundant fossil fuel reserves in the short term to help fund clean energy projects over the long term. “Make hay while the sun shines” as they say.

    10. OntologicalNightmare on

      Weird choice by CBC to say „quit fossil fuels“ when most of the actual language is about phasing out or transitioning away from them. It feels like was worded for the bad faith actors who engage in hyperbole and keep lying about how any green transition means firing every O&G worker tomorrow and shuttering all the fields and refineries instead of things like moving subsidies to green energy instead of O&G.

    11. wet_suit_one on

      Good.

      It’s too late to stop the place burning, but we can mitigate how bad the burning is going to be. It’s probably better for posterity if we try and not incinerate the place.

      It’s the only place in the universe we’ve got or are gonna have for centuries to come. Let’s take care of the place shall we and not give into short term concerns to the detriment of long term necessities. To do otherwise is folly of the highest order.

    Leave A Reply