Trudeau's excessive green house gas emissions.
One plane for Trudeau and his media, and as Scheer put it, the 2nd plane for his costumes and canoe. The 2nd plane used as the liberal cargo plane is a boeing 737-200 which is considered as one of the least efficient and worst polluting airliners in current service. The aircraft built in 1975 was purchased in 2017 by Nolinor Aviation based in Montreal Quebec. The company currently operates the largest fleet of Boeing 737 aircraft in the world. Only 58 of these gas guzzling aircraft remain in service today mostly by charter companies and airlines in developing nations such as Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic as they’re the only airliner still capable of taking off and landing on gravel airstrips.
We have to ask a few questions here. If Trudeau considers himself to be conscious of climate change what is the liberal government doing chartering a airplane that is considered one of the least efficient and worst polluting airliners in current service. No where on the Nolinor Aviation website do they mention anything about being environmental friendly and the efficiency of their aircraft. Why is a Canadian based airline allowed to operate of the largest fleets of Boeing 737-200 aircraft in the world that is considered out-of date, and the most inefficient? How did this gas guzzling airplane help Trudeau to phase out fossil fuel production in Canada and clean up our environment? Trudeau certainly did not give any thought to the environment while transporting his campaign parade around at the expense of the tax payers?
In 1949 Canada had the aviation technology to built the best jetliners in the world that would have been far superior to any Boeing aircraft built today. The Canadian Built Avro jetliner C102 was a jetliner was just one jet plane program that was well ahead of its time. If this jet liner program was allowed to continue in 1951 it undoubtedly would have produced some of the best fuel efficient jetliners in the world as it employed the best aviation engineers of the time. It is no surprise to learn this program was killed by the liberal minister C D Howe in favor of producing Canadian built Fighter jets, the CF-100 Canuck, for the Korean war. A few years after the Korean war, Avro Canada also produced the world's most advanced fighter jet, the Avro Arrow CF-105.
In his defense, Trudeau said his party purchased carbon offsets for both planes and the Liberal buses to mitigate the environmental damage of his party’s campaign travel. The Liberals refused to say how much they paid for the carbon offsets. The president of Bullfrog Power Sean Drygas, the company that the Liberal Party purchased those carbon offsets from said that the offset mechanism is “not the ultimate solution” to the problem of carbon emissions. “The ideal is not to emit carbon in the first place.”
Carbon offsets should not be relied upon as a loophole to justify carbon emissions, say environmental experts.
“The real danger with carbon offsetting is, it allows us to say we are doing things we are not actually doing,” said Kate Ervine, a professor of international development studies at Saint Mary’s University in Nova Scotia. “For instance, with flying — you aren’t lowering emissions overall just because you purchase carbon offsets.” Carbon offsetting is not intended to reduce emissions. It’s not as simple as, ‘I can continue doing what I want as long as I offset’,” said Ervine, the Nova Scotia professor and author of Carbon, a book that looks at the problems of carbon pollution.
An false example of carbon offsetting is planting trees — if a flight from Toronto to Vancouver generated 0.5 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, carbon offsetting in this case would mean planting enough trees to remove 0.5 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Tree planting financed through offset markets would guarantee the polluter could continue emitting carbon, but the market couldn’t guarantee removals to match those emissions. Trees might be planted and subsequently lost to wildfire or logging, or never planted at all. New studies have shown the some older forests now emit more Co2 than they absorb when they are dead or rotting.
Achieving the goal to cut greenhouse-gas emissions will require more scientific action than Canada’s current policies are expected to achieve. Is Trudeau is going to continue producing excessive green house gas has like he has been doing and than buy carbon credits to give himself a non-guilty concussion? Trudeau has positioned the fight against climate change as the core issue of the campaign and repeatedly criticized Scheer for being a laggard. In a statement released during the TVA French language debate, the Conservatives pegged Liberal leader Justin Trudeau as a “high carbon hypocrite” for “lecturing everybody else” on emissions but using “two aircraft to campaign”. Once again Trudeau's personal needs became more important than excessive green house gas emissions. Is Trudeau a hypocrite on climate change for using 2 planes while campaigning in 2019?
Carbon is likely to become a ‘big business’ in its own right if the governments of the world support false programs. World wide governments should not be introducing false programs and should not be taxing citizens with carbon taxes. Governments should consider more programs and research that will find the correct solution to decrease Co2 emissions in the atmosphere. Converting power plants to natural gas from coal will reduce their Co2 emissions by almost 50%. This can be easily done and should be done, until technology makes solar power and green energy more effective, efficient, and affordable for everyone. Elon Musk's electric Tesla vehicles are becoming more efficient and affordable and these are the type of programs that should be researched. Planting trees to justify carbon emissions is not the solution to the problem, the solution is to not make more co2, or support worthy technology to drastically reduce it.
Related topic: Are trees effective Co2 scrubbers
Recent and Related Articles