An excellent essay that is not at all unreasonable. Interestingly, CPP is investing assets on behalf of future beneficiaries who will be confronted by the horrendous consequences of climate change. And these consequences will undoubtedly include food insecurity for the very people on whose behalf CPPIB is supposed to be working.
I’d also add that carbon sequestration is not at all a technology proven in Canada. The only long-life site that has operated in a manner consistent with expectations has been the Norwegian Sleipner project, which sequesters carbon underneath the North Sea. The AB Pathways proposal involves sequestering carbon underneath Alberta, which is a geography riddled with over 180,000 we’ll bores. It is hypothetical and may or not operate as hoped.
Thank you for this important addition, I did add that CCS has yet to be proven. I worked three carbon capture and utilization projects in my time in the industry (Weyburn, Zama, and Princess). All of which cycled gas within weeks of injection. The likelihood of "capture" being effective and scalable are factors which should have ruled out the net-zero strategy to begin with. This is how the industry misleads, actively.
Agree with you entirely. It is unfortunate that we live in a world that prioritizes today over tomorrow. Carney’s 2015 speech to Lloyds confirmed that he perfectly understands the longer-term risks associated with climate change. Now that he is actually in a position to do something about it, it sure seems that he’s ignoring what he once knew in favour of the corporate interests with whom he’s most comfortable. And the oil and gas guys like Pathways have been drinking their own koolaid for so long that there probably isn’t any amount of science that’ll encourage them to reconsider their ambitions to increase oil sands production/export. Another pathetic aspect of all of this is prospective creditors and equity investors won’t fund things like pipelines without government de-risking. If Carney would simply keep Canadians’ tax dollars in the bank we’d not have to have a huge debate about a prospective pipeline to the west coast.
If I had been there, I would have attempted to say that having had my first career in finance, I do my own retirement investing. There is plenty of work that has been done showing that divesting fossil fuels and reinvesting yields better returns. I did this more than 10 yrs ago. Five years ago, I had my investments reviewed by an investment team to check work. The response was that they could not have done better. One of the main research teams I follow is Corporate Knights. At one of their events, in 2019, Mark Carney attended and said "Companies that ignore climate change will go bankrupt." The challenge to keep Canada together surely factors into his strategies. However, your (CPPIBP) strategy should not change - which is to manage Canada's Pension Plan with an emphasis on security. It is clear that fossil fuel investments are more volatile and face the prospect of becoming stranded assets, not to mention the target of legal action at every level of government, including international. We expect better and urge you to consider who you serve.
We must hope for India too. I shudder to imagine the gleeful Alberta money grabbers that see opportunity and O&G salvation in the horrid recent turn of Canadian foreign policy (by which I mean complicity with escalating violence as means of so-called peace).
I am not sure it’s complicity, since actively saying Canada is against US actions will simply make us a target while having no impact whatsoever on the US war. But I understand wanting Canada to speak out against it. I just don’t think it would change anything.
Increased oil prices are sure to increase the Damage the UPC is doing to Alberta whilst increasing the chance of us building a pipeline that will probably be a costly mistake right around the 2030s.
We can speak up for human rights without targeting a convicted felon which as you say, would surely feed his violence. Someone I heard on the Irish radio brought up the good point, that a state of war puts nuclear supplies at risk. It would be nice to be known as a country that takes human rights seriously - and consistently. Alas.
This feels like a turning point — when even Alberta professionals are telling the CPPIB that “engagement” has become a fig leaf for inaction. It’s not anti‑industry anymore; it’s pro‑integrity.
CPP is definitely large enough, and carries enough influence to alter the course for decarbonization. We need to regard CPPIB as a tool to promote those industries that will benefit future generations.
CCS is another industry scam. Oil production is a small part of the overall GHG problem. The product is the problem. We know what the solution is; stop burning hydrocarbons! Big "players" like CPPIB can hasten that solution.
An excellent essay that is not at all unreasonable. Interestingly, CPP is investing assets on behalf of future beneficiaries who will be confronted by the horrendous consequences of climate change. And these consequences will undoubtedly include food insecurity for the very people on whose behalf CPPIB is supposed to be working.
I’d also add that carbon sequestration is not at all a technology proven in Canada. The only long-life site that has operated in a manner consistent with expectations has been the Norwegian Sleipner project, which sequesters carbon underneath the North Sea. The AB Pathways proposal involves sequestering carbon underneath Alberta, which is a geography riddled with over 180,000 we’ll bores. It is hypothetical and may or not operate as hoped.
Thank you for this important addition, I did add that CCS has yet to be proven. I worked three carbon capture and utilization projects in my time in the industry (Weyburn, Zama, and Princess). All of which cycled gas within weeks of injection. The likelihood of "capture" being effective and scalable are factors which should have ruled out the net-zero strategy to begin with. This is how the industry misleads, actively.
Agree with you entirely. It is unfortunate that we live in a world that prioritizes today over tomorrow. Carney’s 2015 speech to Lloyds confirmed that he perfectly understands the longer-term risks associated with climate change. Now that he is actually in a position to do something about it, it sure seems that he’s ignoring what he once knew in favour of the corporate interests with whom he’s most comfortable. And the oil and gas guys like Pathways have been drinking their own koolaid for so long that there probably isn’t any amount of science that’ll encourage them to reconsider their ambitions to increase oil sands production/export. Another pathetic aspect of all of this is prospective creditors and equity investors won’t fund things like pipelines without government de-risking. If Carney would simply keep Canadians’ tax dollars in the bank we’d not have to have a huge debate about a prospective pipeline to the west coast.
If I had been there, I would have attempted to say that having had my first career in finance, I do my own retirement investing. There is plenty of work that has been done showing that divesting fossil fuels and reinvesting yields better returns. I did this more than 10 yrs ago. Five years ago, I had my investments reviewed by an investment team to check work. The response was that they could not have done better. One of the main research teams I follow is Corporate Knights. At one of their events, in 2019, Mark Carney attended and said "Companies that ignore climate change will go bankrupt." The challenge to keep Canada together surely factors into his strategies. However, your (CPPIBP) strategy should not change - which is to manage Canada's Pension Plan with an emphasis on security. It is clear that fossil fuel investments are more volatile and face the prospect of becoming stranded assets, not to mention the target of legal action at every level of government, including international. We expect better and urge you to consider who you serve.
Right now, I am kinda hoping China can rapidly reduce oil and gas usage through electrification. Hopefully soon.
We must hope for India too. I shudder to imagine the gleeful Alberta money grabbers that see opportunity and O&G salvation in the horrid recent turn of Canadian foreign policy (by which I mean complicity with escalating violence as means of so-called peace).
I am not sure it’s complicity, since actively saying Canada is against US actions will simply make us a target while having no impact whatsoever on the US war. But I understand wanting Canada to speak out against it. I just don’t think it would change anything.
Increased oil prices are sure to increase the Damage the UPC is doing to Alberta whilst increasing the chance of us building a pipeline that will probably be a costly mistake right around the 2030s.
We can speak up for human rights without targeting a convicted felon which as you say, would surely feed his violence. Someone I heard on the Irish radio brought up the good point, that a state of war puts nuclear supplies at risk. It would be nice to be known as a country that takes human rights seriously - and consistently. Alas.
This feels like a turning point — when even Alberta professionals are telling the CPPIB that “engagement” has become a fig leaf for inaction. It’s not anti‑industry anymore; it’s pro‑integrity.
Well said. "Pro-integrity" both individually and ecologically.
Thanks for speaking up! It’s our pension contributions. It should be used in investments we believe in.
CPP is definitely large enough, and carries enough influence to alter the course for decarbonization. We need to regard CPPIB as a tool to promote those industries that will benefit future generations.
CCS is another industry scam. Oil production is a small part of the overall GHG problem. The product is the problem. We know what the solution is; stop burning hydrocarbons! Big "players" like CPPIB can hasten that solution.
Thank you!!!