June 06, 2016

Norway threatens to ban ALL gasoline cars — Why Canada might be next

Rebel Staff
 

Norway’s politicians have announced that they intend to ban all fossil-fuel vehicles by 2025. Which, by the way, is just seven and a half years from now.

Norway has a higher number of electric cars, because they’re “cheap.” That is, the government subsidizes them so heavily, they’re artificially cheap.

And Norway is floating on oil. That’s where all the cash comes from to subsidize their electric cars. Sort of like a guy who eats a huge T-bone steak and then says, he wants the vegan dessert…

So naturally, Trudeau’s office saw this Norwegian announcement. The PM’s policy advisor, the environmental extremist Zoe Caron, expressed approval. (Of course, this ban wouldn’t apply to her boss’s jet.)

Then there’s Elon Musk, the president of Tesla, perhaps the most subsidized company in the United States. They make extremely expensive cars and would be out of business in a month without government intervention. So naturally, he was tweeted at Norway: “What an amazingly awesome country. You guys rock!!”

This is just a small story, and it will likely come to nothing.

But it shows us a lot —about Trudeau and his staff, and the true nature of the crony capitalists in the green industry.

Joe Oliver has made the amazing claim that the Liberals spent $9 billion in a single month so they could turn around and say there was a deficit. My guest Ian Lee of the Sprott School of Business talks about this extraordinary assertion, and the Liberals’ other economic policies.

Then I catch up with Breitbart’s Joel Pollack about the U.S. presidential election, and support for Trump among Hispanics.

Finally: I got a lot of emails about my interview with my old Conservative Party colleague Mark Cameron, who is now campaigning for a carbon tax. Like you, I want to learn more about who is funding his organization.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-06-09 08:35:59 -0400
….because the global population has to be energy poor, hungry, cold, homeless and immobile in order to be controlled by the UN’s global plan-Agenda 21. One can’t control people who are employed, well fed, healthy, happy and own nice homes and cars. Just look at Venezuela which went from first world to 3rd world in just 8 years!!! That’s what we’ll get if we don’t wake up….
commented 2016-06-08 20:43:29 -0400
Norway’s green zealots are even dumber and more radical than Canada’s. If Canada’s (pop 34 million) GHG emissions are climatically insignificant, then what are Norway’s (pop 5 million)? Why do these morons insist on being global Boy Scouts?
commented 2016-06-08 14:17:09 -0400
Fairy tale policy for a fairy tale problem. Never do thick headed liberals ever even think of asking the question where does the power come from to charge electric cars? You do know it doesn’t magically come from a hole in the wall, right? So does Norway plan to spend hundreds of billions on new damns once the draw moves away from gas to electricity?
commented 2016-06-07 21:15:52 -0400
“D Mary commented 7 hours ago
Andrew, your point would make some sense if the IPCC scientists had threatened legal action to get thei names ON the reports, not OFF of them.
Further to that, the “hockey stick” model was proven to be a fraud as well. I haven’t the time right now, but you can look it up. Turns out you could enter any data into the model, and still get a “hockey stick.” They saw that and had more reason to demand their names OFF the reports and executive summary.
Lastly, you didn’t address the fact that the ball of fire 93 million miles away controls our climate, direct effect, and, like volcanic eruptions, doesn’t accept money to change what has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. Goodbye AWG theories”

Why did they want their names taken off? Disagreeing with one specific model does not disprove the theory. By the way, it’s nearly impossible to find evidence that this actually occurred (particularly the numbers involved – 30,000 apparently? Let’s just say that that number is dubious for any number of reasons, not the least of which being the number of qualified individuals being perhaps 5% of that number) It seems to be a talking point circulated primarily through right wing blogs, with media occasionally picking up the trail but going nowhere with it

I don’t necessarily agree with the “hockey stick model”, however the general upward trend is pretty indisputable, if only by “arms length” metrics such as isotopic ratios or thawing of permafrost areas that have been frozen for hundreds of millenia.

The Sun is one component, yes. However, so is the atmosphere. The present greenhouse effect adds about 35 degrees to our global average temperature over what is expected from a physical model of direct solar irradiance and uninsulated blackbody re-emission.
commented 2016-06-07 19:10:44 -0400
D Mary: HMMMM. Maybe even set it, eh? No reports of an investigation into the cause that I’ve heard of…. hmmm. As for accepting help, the South Africans were brought in last week and sang in their brightly coloured uniforms. There’s the image for the next election when True dope will counter the inevitable criticism with " but we accepted help from as far away as South Africa"!!!! Nobody will remember the date ( i.e.: the fire was pretty well out ) they’ll just remember the happy Africans singing in uniform.
commented 2016-06-07 18:36:41 -0400
Well since they generate from hydro damns they will need to double or triple the number they have.
commented 2016-06-07 14:24:52 -0400
Doreen, they had every intention of just letting it burn. Manitoba Ontario border had a few small fires and water bombers were brought in from the US immediately, while BC C130 offered was immediately declined.
commented 2016-06-07 14:20:03 -0400
Andrew, your point would make some sense if the IPCC scientists had threatened legal action to get thei names ON the reports, not OFF of them.
Further to that, the “hockey stick” model was proven to be a fraud as well. I haven’t the time right now, but you can look it up. Turns out you could enter any data into the model, and still get a “hockey stick.” They saw that and had more reason to demand their names OFF the reports and executive summary.
Lastly, you didn’t address the fact that the ball of fire 93 million miles away controls our climate, direct effect, and, like volcanic eruptions, doesn’t accept money to change what has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. Goodbye AWG theories.
commented 2016-06-07 14:12:35 -0400
Roger and D Mary:
Further to your points, how many men, women, children and pets would have perished in the Fort Mac inferno had they been forced to drive electric vehicles? My guess, hundreds if not thousands. And True dope and Naughty wouldn’t have given a damn….
commented 2016-06-07 12:56:58 -0400
“D Mary commented 1 hour ago
Andrew, the real data from the scientific research conducted by the IPCC scientists, was modified when the IPCC generated the Executive Summary, forcing those very scientists to threaten legal action to have their names removed from the reports, which the IPCC finally did. Then after the head of the IPCC retired, he joined Lord Moncton in pursuing those that profit from the AGW farce to bring them up on criminal charges. Those two items are more than sufficient to prove the lie is in play.”

That doesn’t actually disprove the science. I would like to see actual objective data that refutes the claims, not fanciful tales of legal posturing (which really only addresses the natural territoriality of scientists and has literally nothing to do with scientific principles). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
commented 2016-06-07 12:37:49 -0400
Norway is an example of why governments embrace the pseudoscience behind climate change hysteria. It allows them to indulge in cronyism, expand the reach of government & manipulate the markets – all for the good of the little people, of course.

When it comes to this Liberal government’s economic policies it’s always a question of are they corrupt, incompetent or both. They always keep us guessing.

Trump certainly wasn’t my first choice but if he smashes the mainstream media’s hold on so many low information voters & forces future presidential hopefuls to stand up to SJWs (instead of pandering to them) he’ll be one of America’s great presidents.
commented 2016-06-07 12:14:03 -0400
Good point Roger. It would be just as ridiculous as using electricity for heating homes and businesses in our northern climes. I sure wouldn’t want to live in Northern Ontario and have to heat my home the way Wynne is going.
commented 2016-06-07 12:08:31 -0400
So, just what is the range on an electric vehicle in Ft. Mac or Yellowknife when it’s -30, and the heater is going full blast?
I’m sure it’s enough to make it to the next charging point, where you can sit there in line for hours…
/sarc off
commented 2016-06-07 12:05:44 -0400
Andrew, the real data from the scientific research conducted by the IPCC scientists, was modified when the IPCC generated the Executive Summary, forcing those very scientists to threaten legal action to have their names removed from the reports, which the IPCC finally did. Then after the head of the IPCC retired, he joined Lord Moncton in pursuing those that profit from the AGW farce to bring them up on criminal charges. Those two items are more than sufficient to prove the lie is in play.
Add to that the facts that the sun does not accept cash or MasterCard to change it’s effects on our climate, which have been happening for hundreds of millions of years, and all efforts globally to reduce GHG emissions over a 10 year period would be wiped out by a single volcanic eruption, of which there are many, and many active volcanoes assure that event, and volcanoes don’t accept money either.
commented 2016-06-07 11:46:12 -0400
Andrew, that may be fine for urbanites, but for, as the story says, “all cars”, it is completely unrealistic. In addition, Idon’t have enough information to draw a parallel to what Wynne is doing, but if the tactic is the same, this plays into the farcical AGW scheme and her power generation scam, green energy. It sure stinks the same.
commented 2016-06-07 11:38:16 -0400
Seriously, Canadians can’t be the stupid. Wait…Wynn is, Notley is, Trudeau is…but surely the rest are not.
commented 2016-06-07 11:37:29 -0400
Peter Netterville:

’The real data proves that it is a lie. The science sure the hell is not settled. "

Your two claims are at odds. If the science is not settled you can’t claim that the science is settled and “provs” it a lie (the data predominantly the opposite conclusion, that it’s a real phenomenon of some degree, but as you say, the magnitude is not clear right now).

I don’t disagree with the need to do it gradually. (I’m not an “eco freak” either – I do, for example, own a substantial amount of pipeline stock) Obviously we need to bear practical considerations in mind, but there are some practical and immediate changes we can make – the argument here often tends towards a strict maintenance of status quo rather than gradual phase in over 50 years or so.
commented 2016-06-07 11:29:44 -0400
“Electric cars only have a range of 80 to 100 miles and uses a charging energy equivalent to power 1000 homes. Conclusion: Not practical. "

If you only drive 30 miles a day, then the range doesn’t matter. This is especially true in Europe with its extremely well developed railway network.

An electric car getting 6km/kwh will use about 3000kwh a year, equivalent to a continuous load of about 350 watts. Driving it to the full claimed 80 mile range (120km) means 20kwh (Nissan Leaf’s battery is 24kwh), which charges in a few hours at a comparable current draw to a standard electric drier. Hardly 1000x, the draw is about 1/5000 of that.
commented 2016-06-07 10:55:32 -0400
Say hello to higher heating and electric costs. Blame the leftists and the granola crunchers.
commented 2016-06-07 10:53:06 -0400
Electric cars only have a range of 80 to 100 miles and uses a charging energy equivalent to power 1000 homes. Conclusion: Not practical.
commented 2016-06-07 10:51:09 -0400
If Fruito Trudeau and Lezbo Wynne and their kind prevents me from doing my job by driving to remote rural areas and other cities, I will sue them.
commented 2016-06-07 10:49:55 -0400
Yes, it is just another essential tool for us, and if you have ever had elk roast, it’s the original method for putting quality food on the table. And, to this day, none of my guns have ever hopped out the door and shot anyone, a fact ignored by the libs and anti-gun crowd.
commented 2016-06-07 10:36:21 -0400
I think carry in that situation is a good example.
commented 2016-06-07 10:34:14 -0400
Deacon, I understand that one but I do support “carry” concept, as I am a rancher and my gun is loaded at the ready for predator control; they don’t seem to comply when you say “hold off on your attack while I fetch my keys, gun, ammo, etc.”
commented 2016-06-07 10:33:06 -0400
I’m going to let my F350 Diesel run all day today.
We’ll be watching for the outcome of this legislation 7.5 year from now.
If I were in Norway I think I’d treat my diesel fuel truck like the dopers treat their marijuana. Even though it is/was/maybe was/ could be illegal, I’ll just go ahead and drive it anyway, regardless of the law.
My money is on fossil in 7.5 years.
commented 2016-06-07 10:27:06 -0400
D Mary – sorry I was a bit imprecise originally. Keith would be the LAST person I’d want to own a gun.
commented 2016-06-07 10:23:34 -0400
Fair enough Deacon. I just didn’t see any in this thread. I guess I get distracted when he groups everyone together saying we voted for Trudeau and Notley, when the only ones on this forum that did so are the paid "Gordo Steele " aliases/trolls. And of course because he states that because of "carry " laws, his Texas is completely crime free. I travel to DFW and Houston regularly and it certainly has it’s share of crime.
commented 2016-06-07 10:18:10 -0400
He’s not blunt, he’s a violent guy. There is a difference between being blunt and saying someone should shoot Notely in the head (from a past comment).
commented 2016-06-07 10:09:08 -0400
D Mary, I am generally referring to the threats he has made in other comments.
commented 2016-06-07 10:08:22 -0400
I tend to agree with D Mary. Where was the threat in Keith’s rather blunt comments?