|
|
|
The National Housing Act was first passed in 1938.
You think all that suburban housing that was built between the 1940s and 1970s was built with minimal government intervention?
Oil being steady is fine, but really, really hope we don’t see a boom. That would undo all the good momentum of the non oil and gas businesses.Speaking of those Ontario numbers. I know these articles are sensationalist, and meant to grab attention, but it does raise some interesting points. Hopefully Calgary's economy can stay strong, but not go into a boom situation. Especially an oil boom situation. It would be nice to keep these non-oil and gas companies rolling in. It would also be nice if housing costs stayed reasonable.
For the sake of their financial future, young people should leave Toronto and Vancouver
They may be great places to live, if you can afford it. If not, living in Vancouver and Toronto can be harmful to your financial healthwww.theglobeandmail.com
I don't think there is any chance of an 'oil & gas boom' the way it has manifested in the past. We would need 'all out' drilling + one or two new oil sands projects + additional pipeline projects. I can see more drilling for nat gas and light oil that will help fill the additional capacity that TMP and Coastal Gas Link will provide. However new oil sands and pipeline projects will be dead thanks to federal policies ... and they would have to start now to impact the Alberta economy in a 'boom' sense.
The feds and province can just override municipal zoning. The feds can’t provide that regulatory relief.
Or you could say, the inability to go to market to raise $10 billion plus at a rate to make the project pencil when earnings potential is 5 plus years into the future—when the entire world is on a decarbonization path. Plenty of stale projects are sitting on approvals.
I don't know if the feds can take all of the blame, or even any of the blame. The issue is the the massive amount of investment needed, and how long it'll take for the ROI. I used to think oil would be going strong even, 25 years from now, but now I'm not so sure. There is more impetus now than ever to get off of oil.
Market conditions are outside anyone's control. Inefficient regulation is completely owned by government. Bill C69, which made regulatory decisions more political instead of less is the worst example,. Other examples :a carbon tax that isn't applied uniformly to all provinces, inviduals and industries, a rumored arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions and overall focus on social engineering rarher than growing the economy for everyone.
The feds are building a new passenger railway, and the airlines are testing ‘sustainable’ fuel, along with purchasing battery hybrid regional planes.
Carbon pricing would be fine if always applied equally and it exempted exports. Instead it as yet another wealth redistribution and Liberal vote buying initiative
From Albertans to Albertans. Such redistribution.
Absolutely agree. Government policy is one of the main reasons why raising capital for mega projects would be near impossible. Who would want to take the risk? The Canadian dollar used to be referred to as a 'petro currency'. It would rise and fall with the price of oil. While the price of oil has recovered to $75+ for all of the last year, the Canadian dollar has underperformed. That is a sure sign that there is a lack of confidence from foreign investors.
The IEA would beg to differ on this one. Although you are right that market sentiment indicates that a a majority of investors have believed in the decarbonization fantasy over the past 5-7 years or so, that is starting to change as people wake up to reality.
Investment in Canada has not underperformed. And currency is not us trading in a fixed system with mechanical responses.
Agreed with all of that - however you stated that the "entire world is on a decarbonization path" which is clearly not the case according to IEA data and projections. Combating energy ignorance and misinformation is one of the most important things we need to do as a society.
