42 Nobel prize winners,
including Canada’s
Alice Munro,
signed a letter
published in Britain’s
Guardian newspaper,
urging Justin Trudeau
not to approve the
Teck Frontier
oil sands mine.
Signatories included
many non-scientists,
such as Ms. Munro,
but also included
many chemists,
physicists and others
whose expertise
is relevant to climate.
After over a decade
trying to get approval,
Teck abruptly cancelled
the project.
Teck’s President and CEO
Don Lindsay wrote to the
Minister of Climate Change that
“We are disappointed
to have arrived at this point
... As a proudly Canadian
company for over 100 years”
but
“The promise of Canada’s
potential will not be realized
until governments
can reach agreement
around how climate policy
considerations
will be addressed
in the context of future
responsible energy
sector development.
Without clarity
on this critical question,
the situation that has
faced Frontier will be faced
by future projects
and it will be very difficult
to attract future investment,
either domestic or foreign.”
The government response
to Teck’s announcement
merely praises the company
for sharing the government’s
vision: “We agree with Teck
and leading industry groups
that all orders of government
need a real plan
for climate action now
and to reach a net zero
( CO2) economy by 2050.”
Canada’s oil sands,
called “tar sands”
by opponents,
involve digging up
the world’s largest,
and natural, oil spill
and cleaning
the heavy oil
out of the sand.
Even many
environmentalists
do not like the current
Canadian approval
process.
Many people
in private business,
decided long ago that
it was very bad
public relations
to argue the science
of climate change.
They will bullied to agree
that fossil fuels
are destroying the Earth.
But those who
don’t believe the
climate alarmist claims
must speak up now,
or huge projects
like this one
will be cancelled.
This blog is
my contribution
to the science
of climate change.
That's why
this blog
deals with
the present
and past climate
-- not
computer game
wild guesses
of the future,
predicting double
to triple the warming
that actually happens.
And not fake
climate studies,
that ignore the past
325 years of mild,
good news global
warming, since
the 1690s, to claim
future global warming
MUST be completely
different --
very bad news,
not good news
( because they say so ? )
We've been
adding CO2
to the atmosphere
for over 100 years
-- so where is
the bad news?
It's in the overactive
imaginations of the
always angry and
fearful leftists !