May 24th, 2024

Dirty energy needs to be cleaned up

By Letter to the Editor on October 30, 2021.

It is strange that all the hoopla, rhetoric and chest pounding pundits we have seen and heard about, who are advocating clean energy – wind, solar, nuclear, etc. forget that we still need “dirty energy” in order to get there.
We still need investment in oil, natural gas and coal – yes coal – for the next 10 to 20 years. We just have to manage each sector correctly – be sure the carbon is collected, stored safely or used.
We are smart enough to be sure we no longer damage our planet as we generate more electricity for warmth, growing food, making solar panels, making windmills, keeping our lights on, appliances working, vehicles moving and that is just a few.
The plastic manufacturing and plastic product making industry has finally woken up. They are now working towards “zero” landfilling and recycling all the 380 million tonnes that is made and used every year and that figure will increase every year until the recycling infrastructure is in place.
We simply cannot feed and clothe the people of the world without plastic – and a plant-based polymer will never provide enough supply.
What about hydrogen? It still takes energy to tear water molecules apart, store it or make fuel cells. It costs too much, is dangerous and too hard to store. It is the fuel of the future forever in the future.
So let’s face the facts – dirty energy is with us for a long time yet – all we have to do is invest in cleaning it up.
Grant R. Harrington

Share this story:

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Grany, you’ll have to look up what ‘net’ means in net-zero.

Next, the International Energy Agency says that no new investment in fossil fuels is required. We have enough to make an energy transition. (

And using fossil fuels for plastics is not the priority. Coal for electricity and oil for transportation are.

Fedup Conservative

It was our hero Peter Lougheed who told the Klein and Stelmach governments to slow down the growth of the oilsands and get control of the pollution, but they refused to listen.
The oil executives agreed that something had to be done and they agreed to join the Kyoto Accord but Klein and Harper refused to allow them to do so.
Dr. David Swann sided with these oil executives pointing out that it was causing health issues for many Albertans and Klein had him fired. Public outcry forced Klein to apologize and offer him his job back but Swann refused and eventually became leader of the Liberal Party in Alberta.
For years we have heard these Reformers telling the world that they don’t give a damn about Global Warming , while the world does care and they have been some of the worst enemies the oil industry has. Now Kenney has tried to blame it on others and has come up looking like a damn fool himself while wasting taxpayers money.
Harper refused to implement a Carbon Tax like TransCanada Pipeline wanted him to do and their executive Dennis McConaghy thinks that it was why Obama wouldn’t approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Citi Zen

Sounds like you are advocating for increased carbon taxes. Trudeau has already penalized us with that.

Fedup Conservative

So what’s your problem. Can you explain why a carbon tax has been in place in Sweden since 1991 and it hasn’t financially destroyed anyone , yet these reformers have been able to convince fools like you that it will. Whining about paying a carbon tax while you collect a Carbon tax rebate that will actually benefit some seniors doesn’t make you look very smart does it?

Dennis Bremner

Please do not step out of your promotion of dead Conservatives “Fedup” you always make laughable statements! This is what happens when you grow up secluded.
Can I tell you how Sweden was successful on this amazing venture that you insist is some sort of wizardly”? Sweden is 400,000sq km, the YUKON is 400,000 sq km. Sweden habitable area is along its coasts.
Its primary source of income is Forestry. It culls the interior while living on its coastline. It is not a “GHG generating Resource Country” so does not have a “GHG footprint” that represents the demand of other countries, like Canada does! Or the GHG production required to service the massive size of Canada!
Sweden has 10,000,000 people cloistered in rather small ribbon around the countries coastline , Canada has 38,000,000 spread out over 10,000,000 sq km.
So if there is any “fool” here Fedup, its you. You compare something the size of the Yukon to the entire country of Canada, You compare a “Resource producing Country” to a resource consumming country in Europe? Really sad, and you thought you would embarrass some one with your worldly knowledge!
You understand little, now if you compared us to China (10,000,000 sq km) the nutbars would suddenly say…yah but they got billions of people, as if a pipeline cares how many taps are on it? China generates 31% of all Global Emissions, we generate 2% ! How much of that 2% GHG generates Nat Gas to everyone in Canada, Fedup? What portion of our GHGs goes to feeding Ontario and Quebec with Oil Fedup? Bring your amazing worldly knowledge please! Swedens total length is 978 miles its width is 310 and you compare our failure to their success? You can drive across Sweden in 5 hours on one tank of Gas E/W That’s the true laugh!

Last edited 2 years ago by Dennis Bremner


BTW Canada has 0.5% of the World’s population and makes 2% of the global emissions from fossil fuels. How many kilometers of Swedish coastline do you need to justify our privileged consumption or to deny our responsibility to reduce?

Dennis Bremner

What exactly do you not understand about Resource Countries that supply the world, vs non resource countries that consume only? I would say A LOT! Are you not aware that Resource consumers generate no Production GHGs? So, because Sweden imports its Gasoline, that makes their cars better?
If oil came out of the ground as Gasoline and did not have to be cracked to provide a Swedish Car, and we had no Production GHGs would that work for you?
If Aluminum came out of the ground in slabs, would that somehow be OK? Or is it “He who produces a necessary commodity must suffer the most”? Just tell people to stop using Aluminum? Oh wait can’t do that, that’s a Quebec “special GHG”
There are two types of GHGs, Consumption GHGs and Production GHGs….heaven forbid if you are in both because the Consuming GHG countries and the Planet huggers with no brain get to slag you every every day!
If a commodity is NECESSARY for the existence of MANKIND, then Production GHGs should not be counted in total Green House Gases until a Cleaner Replacement is found, and phased in, PERIOD!

Last edited 2 years ago by Dennis Bremner

PERIOD … gosh!

‘Mankind’ existed long before the refining of bauxite. The problem with your approach, as I understand it, is that nobody is asking that ‘Resource Countries’ do any more than any other. Ultimately, all the resources and energy create ‘consumer’ products. We will necessarily consume less in a low-carbon economy.

What is necessary for ‘mankind’, however, is a stable and livable climate.


The climate is ever changing, so there is no such thing as stability


But I do agree with you, old school, that the emission should follow the consumer.
For example, all the cement and steel exported by China should be attributed to the importing country.

Dennis Bremner

Thank you, that is my point from the getgo. If we have any chance of fixing this issue we have to separate Production GHGs from Consumption GHGs. Why? Because, quite frankly there would be no Production GHGs if there was no consumption or demand. You can see some more nutbars in this conversation still do not understand that! They prefer to deal in politics then in climate facts.


Look how quickly the world came together on the COVID issue. When the will is there action follows quickly.
Petro lobbyists in cahoots with government are the problem. I’m thankful we have a new federal minister of environment who understands the issues.

Dennis Bremner

Really? What we have is a radical tree hugger as Enviro Minister, and somehow you see a rational approach being taken?
I can meet 2035 targets tomorrow, shut down all Oil and Gas Production in Canada. But, prairiebreze, how will you get to the grocery store, heat your home? Do you drive a Tesla and have solar panels and live off the grid, if so how do you charge your Tesla? Well the nutbar we have as Enviro Minister is about to put those theories to the test!

Last edited 2 years ago by Dennis Bremner

Another false narrative. There is a difference between ‘reduce’ and ‘eliminate’. Like Grant, you could learn what the ‘net’ in net-zero really means.

Dennis Bremner

I am more than knowledgeable as to what NET ZERO is based on. What is not stated is where geographically those emissions will be reduced within Canada. So putting a “radical in charge” that hates oil/gas but uses it everyday to survive, is not logical. In his mind creating a Country that becomes reliant on imported Oil/Gas is far better then generating your own because you have the Generated GHGs stopping you from saving the planet!
Have you noticed that no one is saying, Ontario, you must reduce by X%, BC, X% SK X%? What they are saying is Canada must reduce to 2005 levels with no explanation whatsoever as to whom takes the largest hit and how that is achieved without focusing on 2 provinces… know, the ones heating your home and getting you to work!
I rather enjoy the term Net Zero, because it allows people to buy imaginary credits to pretend they are not polluting…how does that save the planet? Are you going to tell me that Goldman Sachs providing 7000 small stoves to Africa to prevent open fires, that reduces GHGs is worth the $100s of millions they want from polluters annually to rent their credit? Our new Enviro guy knows credits are farcical, which means…wait for it Alberta, Sask!

We have no idea how to do the calculation but somehow Goldman Sachs has figured out how to profit from it. So how did we arrive at our 2% GHGs, if you ask they say we cannot use our forests because they burn every year? Yet if we did use the forested area we would be near net zero now, but wait there is more! They want us to plant more trees to offset GHG production, but don’t want to count what we have? Wait, there is even more !! We cut down full grown trees in BC like its going out of style! Cut a fully grown tree, and plant a sappling… many sapplings = 1 tree? Bet you there is no GHG calculation on that! Don’t believe me SophieR?
Okay how about the Canadian National Inventory Report on GHGs Chapter 8 where it states the following and I quote!
“……………….. forestry sector are excluded from national totals and subsequently not reported as part of the Greenhouse gas emissions indicators.
So we exclude the forestry sector because we have fires….which contribute to GHGs, but then suggest we plant more trees to lower our GHGs? But, when you do plant them, you won’t count them!!!!!!!!!!!! So you write off 100% of Canadas Forested land mass because of fires in less than 5%. Why? Perhaps so people like you can quote the .5% of the people and 2% of the GHGs to help the radicals and Socially Acceptable Nutbars? Do you think Italy adds in GHGs to make themselves look worse because they have Volcano’s?
Is this a Con Job to misrepresent our contribution? Perhaps so you can then squeeze the Oil and Gas Sector ? We are at NET ZERO now if you used our forested areas to offset GHGs, but that does not fit the Liberal Narrative, nor allows the Golden Boy to look like a planet saver, which he needs to be or he goes back to being a Drama Teacher!
The only way to reduce GHG’s by a further 40‑45 percent by any date is to cripple western economies, or have you thought this threw yet SophieR? The only false narrative going on here is the window dressing on whom will get the shaft and how far it will be inserted.
So before assuming someone knows nothing, check your own knowledge base!

Last edited 2 years ago by Dennis Bremner

Again you fall back on your exaggerations. You make me think you can only drive heavy on the brake or heavy on the gas. There is no hypocrisy in supporting the reduction of fossil fuel use and having to live in a society dependent on it. It’s like being critical of living in a plutocracy, but still living in one.

And it never fails that the ‘crippling of the economy’ boogeyman is raised (though, maybe, this was a halloween surprise?). The comparison of ‘crippling the economy’ to the status quo economy is false. One has to consider which is worse: changing how we do ‘economy’ in a post-fossil fuel, and lower consumption lifestyle or trying to maintain an energy-rich lifestyle with a destabilized climate. Most people are becoming aware that the latter is more of a threat to our ‘economy’ – that is, how we distribute the necessities of life (rather than how we make a few people fabulously wealthy).

No doubt the ideas around credits and offsets (which is what you are really talking about with the cookers) require more work and more data. Hence the focus on something easier to measure – burning coal, oil and natural gas. The aim is to reduce carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. If this does not happen, more strict measures must come. At that time, I would expect that the ‘cheats’ will face their comeuppance.

There are no ‘sectors’ or ‘regions’ that will have to do more or less than any other. It is a red-herring concern. In other words, we are one atmosphere and we are in this together.

As for the colourful name-calling, this does not help your argument (which, to be fair, suggests some important concerns). Trudeau is no more a drama teacher than Harper was a mail sorter with Exxon. Judge them for what they are doing, good or bad.

Dennis Bremner

Fair answer, however, the speed in which we apply the deceleration in the use of Oil and Gas is based on the readily available and reliable replacements. There is no replacement for Natural Gas, and arguably Gasoline/Diesel in about 80% of the geography of Canada.
So if, and I say, if, everyone was on the same playing field playing with the same ball and measurements used the same yardstick, then you could come up with a plan that does substitution over time. Time the huggers insist we do not have.
Based on the existing infrastructure we have more work to do on Stationary power and the grid then we do on Nat Gas and Cars.
Without a grid that can withstand the 24 hour charging of Electrical Cars and without Stable Stationary power, we go nowhere. Stable stationary power does not include windmills and solar. Grid upgrades and Non Coal stationary power will be about a $3trillion tab. So where do we get that? NG and Transportation should be well down the list because attacking them without stable power will just create another emergency when the brown and blackouts begin!
I did notice you sidestepped the Tree thing, which is pretty normal considering other countries calculate their CO2 absorption to create their GHG number, we don’t!
As for name calling barely adequate people who also pretend they know what they are talking about….well its a tradition here on LH!
The only red herring here is the one you said was a Red Herring! Alberta Oil is going to suffer big time! Not conflict oil, not Human Right infraction Oil, just Alberta Oil

Last edited 2 years ago by Dennis Bremner

I agree prairiebreze. My generation has grown up listening to all the reasons we can’t respond to the climate crisis.

Though I don’t disagree with older school that there are some challenges and, perhaps, some serious lifestyle changes ahead. But at least there will be an ahead.

As for trees, I am also skeptical about counting credits as we deforest and burn and try to replant trees that may not flourish in a warming atmosphere and shifts in precipitation. But like I said before, these contortions will end if the ghg concentrations don’t begin to flatten. The measure and the goal are clear. And there is little time for failed means.

Dennis Bremner

So why not demand a GHG number that is on par with everyone else using the same inputs and outputs instead of the Made in Canada number that allows the Climate Nutbars to go nuts?
Either you allow trees as an offset or you do not. If you do not, then everyone does not! If you do not, what the hell is the use of planting them, if you insist on not using them? Another Climate Nutbar Algorithm

Last edited 2 years ago by Dennis Bremner

It’s not going to happen over night but if we don’t get serious about it and take substantial action the consequences are clear – we’re doomed.
Look at all the harm associated with fossil fuel. Oil spill after oil spill … lakes, rivers and ground water contaminated; wildlife habitat wiped out; air and soil polluted; health issues like never before (cancers and more). Do you seriously want to keep going on this path? Fortunately, transition is happening whether you like it or not. Wouldn’t you rather have us at the forefront harnessing and using renewables than have us left behind? Jason Kenney needs to stop whining and crying and show some vision and understanding of science. Climate change is real and it’s driven by burning fossil fuel for the last several hundred years and accelerated like never before in the last few decades. What we need to do is get going on re-training people into green jobs – that will have them cheering. Going to work each day knowing your helping to destroy our planet must be really depressing unless your a sociopath.

Last edited 2 years ago by prairiebreze
Fedup Conservative

So while these stupid Alberta seniors go around pretending what great conservatives they are they let Liberals turned Reformers in Ralph Klein and Jason Kenney screw them out of their money and make fools of them. It isn’t hard to understand why people call them the dumbest people on the planet or why Alberta conservatives call them traitors, because that’s what they are. Have they forgotten that Klein’s father and daughter tried to help us vote him out and they wouldn’t let us. .
The German Conservatives told me how proud they were of their government when I was there a few years ago for taking action against the pollution problem they had.
Maybe these fools should google this:
“German Conservatives Have Laid Groundwork for Making Country Climate Neutral by 2045”
Germany has a population of 80 million and Alberta with one of highest percentages of pollution in the world per capita only has a population of 4 million. Maybe we should start suing these fools who won’t listen to us, what do you think?
These reformers have cost Albertans some $167,000. each in lost oil revenues and these fools were willing to let them do it. Alaska’s Permanent Fund is now valued at $80 billion and every man , women and child has received some $46,000. each in total annual oil dividend checks since 1982. They got some $900. each just this year . Klein bought these fools for only $400. Now who do you think is the damn fool?

Dennis Bremner

you said:Now who do you think is the damn fool?

I would say its people that live in the past and cannot move on? Is that the correct answer??? lol

Fedup Conservative

Actually it’s fools like you who ignore the past and what you let these phoney conservatives do to us. But as lawyers and university professors point out guys like you don’t want to hear the truth, you can’t handle it, you aren’t man enough.

Fedup Conservative

As a lawyer friend would say “Keep rubbing their noses in it. Watching your true facts upset them is hilarious, it really irritates them and it should. They don’t even know what a true conservative is.”

Dennis Bremner

You do realize the subject is climate change, right? lol
And, of course you do realize Germany is smaller then the Yukon? So we get these anti social nutbars here who speak of places they do not understand, and have no idea how small they are and use them as “the example” . Germany’s 35000 km transmission grid is somehow a clone of our 160,000 km transmission grid. Germany’s 300,000 sq km land size is somehow a clone of 10,000,000 sq km and what is easy in a Yukon sized country is eazy peazy in a country that is THE SECOND LARGEST IN THE WORLD. And, yet, somehow this “living in the past Conservative” sees the tax base of Germany of 83,000,000 people stuffed into a country smaller then the Yukon, is the same as 38,000,000 stuffed into the second largest country in the world?
I quote ” Germany’s most imported product is petroleum under different forms: crude, refined or gas and it constitutes almost 14% of the country’s total imports.”
So a Consuming countries GHG measurement is the standard for a Resource Producing Countries GHG measurement? How strange climate nutbars are?
Did you go to Germany using your new Virtual Reality Headset? Did you take them off when looking around Canada? We can’t even get a high speed train to work here, even though japan has as much snow as we do, when challenged….well we are too large? So we are toooo large for a high speed train but not too large for everything else that is Socially Acceptable? Somehow we should be able to interconnect a vast country like Canada to fix our emission problems but we are too big for a 300km train? So at the exact same time we need the most money, we kill the largest income earner for the government? I love nutbars, they are such funny people!

The comparator to our failure are countries the size of a postage stamp that consume, not produce high GHG content! The comparator is a postage stamp with 2.5 times the population and 1/30th the land mass? The comparator is a country that has no speed limit on the Autobahn so international/national trade can occur quicker! But Canucks get a ticket for 10km over the 100km limit when trying to get across this vast 5000 mile country! The comparator is a country that was re-assembled after WW2 with the newest of equipment at the cost of its foes, which created the largest powerhouse in Europe today! We still get embarrassed by Prostitution and Europe has them on display in windows! You want to compare us to an open minded society that tests every limit? Ever notice that the societies that mix religion with politics seem to be the ones that are the least progressive? Those that do not, are focused on a single source, wealth creation. Those that mix the two are always in strife and always forgo growth! This is got to be your joke of the day, right Fedup?

After the drama queen stops spending money and the debt comes due we should have $1.20 to spend on climate change! I will let the climate knobs who need to kill Canada’s/Alberta’s largest Income ASAP to figure out where to spend it! Because no one has the brain power to figure this out, the New Enviro Minister…Mr Radical Nutbar will figure it out for you! Standby Alberta/Sask…..INCOMING!!!

Declaration- I am not a climate denier, I am an articulator of the nutbars now running this zoo we call a planet! Groups have re-written the holy scriptures, and can’t figure out what gender they are! Everyone now has a need to receive everything for free because they are to delicate to work for a living! Because they are so weak, everything they get is then categorized as ” a Disease” because no one takes personal responsibility anymore! Its always some one else’s fault! Social Acceptability is now based on the number of “likes” one receives and “it shall be the opinion!”

Last edited 2 years ago by Dennis Bremner
Fedup Conservative

As my oilmen friends would say “Maybe you should get your head out of your ass and get in the real world”. Last night on Global News in Edmonton a women representing Suncor supported what Trudeau had said yesterday about strong control of emissions, and knows he is right. SUNCOR HAS BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A REAL ISSUE.
Maybe Old School should stop trying to be the Village Idiot and start listening to what people are saying. For the past 22 years I have been having coffee week day mornings with retired people from all walks of life including lawyers, accountants, oilmen, bankers, teachers, doctors, nurses etc and they are certainly a lot smarter than him.
Germany has a population of 80 million people yet Alberta with a population of only 4 million is producing a lot pollution than they are , but Old School is too damn dumb to get it. The oil executives we know do.
Of course you can refer him to articles that prove it but he’s too dumb to read them.
“Suncor Climate Change Debate”
“On The World Stage Oil Executives Support a Carbon Tax” There are all sorts of articles like these but these stupid seniors just aren’t smart enough to read them.
But as my senior friends keep pointing out :Why are you wasting your time on these mentally deranged stupid seniors, you can’t change them.
I think it’s fun watching them prove how stupid they are.

Fedup Conservative

I hope I have been sarcastic enough I fully intended to be. While the oil industry knows we must do something about our pollution problem these ignorant seniors, who could be filling their pockets with Carbon Tax Rebates don’t want it. How stupid can you be?