See there's an issue with that. Remember I said it was going to create declining profits? It's bad enough when it's a private owner, do want to see what happens when a public crown corp loses 30% of its year-over-year revenue? Take a good hard look at Canada Post.

And if it isn’t good enough to attract private investment etc and oil and gas is… Well, I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.

If we stuck by that logic Canada would still be using whale oil and relying on carrier pigeons for communication. The rules of economics work funny here, because we are living next to the economic equivalent of a black hole. That means Canadian startups have a problem. Canadians don't invest domestically unless it's a guaranteed dividend. We don't do angel investors and our banks are deeply risk averse. Meanwhile foreign investment tends to go south every time, because it's a much bigger market with a gravitational pull that breaks the economic system of its neighbours. Historically, that means every time an emerging industry needs seed capital, they have to turn to the state. Everything from electricity, to telephone, to radio, and even our oil. Our oil sector started out as public, until we sold it off for some quick short-term gains. We do crown corps and public-private-partnerships for all kinds of things for a reason. Those markets couldn't emerge naturally in this environment. So yes, we aren't running theoretical numbers, but we do live at the extreme edge of the universe where the rules work funny.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Apologies, I meant to edit out the silly bits because I knew we'd get distracted.

Meant to just respond:

I’m talking about the direct subsidies including failure to enforce our own laws and letting serial criminals make a mockery of us. I’m talking about actual waivers of legal consequences, direct and indirect corruption, and straight up cash infusions, tax waivers, and bailouts during tight seasons.

You are welcome to share a trustworthy resource that comes to similar findings but I’ve never seen anything like that from a reputable source. IMF is pretty decent and calculates the vast majority of the costs as climate externalities. (ie, the tragedy of the commons.)

And right now, your entire claim seems to rest on this shadowy secret costs that are separate from the often cited climate externalities.

No, that’s a significant oversimplification of how markets and investments work.

You are similarly welcome to share why you believe you have a project that is a viable, long term profitable green energy approach that is simultaneously uninvestable. But so far, your only given reason is this nonsense that “we’re too obsessed with selling our fossil fuel reserves. " That’s not at all how markets work, not even in a simplified child’s model.

But to your points:

Take a good hard look at Canada Post.

Canada Post loses billions a year, that's not making a profit by any model.

Canadians don’t invest domestically unless it’s a guaranteed dividend.

By your logic, almost no Canadian company should exist. Believe it or not, they do.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Canada Post loses billions a year, that’s not making a profit by any model.

Didn't always. See what happens when legacy crown corps slip away into irrelevance?

By your logic, almost no Canadian company should exist. Believe it or not, they do.

I am also simplifying, there's a complex web of motives, completely unrelated to profit, that influence how Canadians invest, but as a general trend we absolutely do not invest in emerging domestic industry. It's got to be a proven market or it won't get a second glance. There's also a threshold above which domestic investment just wouldn't cut it and relying on international cash means trying to land big backers to projects in a market 1/10th the size of our nearest neighbour. This is part of why no one is going to fund the pipelines. They'll be profitable. They won't get built unless we do it ourselves, and we won't be able to sell it off to private markets before it becomes a boat anchor on our economy for a century.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Again... To the actual questions...

I’m talking about the direct subsidies including failure to enforce our own laws and letting serial criminals make a mockery of us. I’m talking about actual waivers of legal consequences, direct and indirect corruption, and straight up cash infusions, tax waivers, and bailouts during tight seasons.

And right now, your entire claim seems to rest on this shadowy secret costs that are separate from the often cited climate externalities.

No, that’s a significant oversimplification of how markets and investments work.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, and as for the findings on direct subsidies, you can get a more nuanced breakdown here: https://environmentaldefence.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Canadas-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies.pdf

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

And i the vast majority is counting loan guarantees and preferential rates as subsidies. And instead of calculating the subsidy as say, the difference between the standard and preferential rate, they've taken the entire loan value, which is some nonsense accounting, good for rabble rousing I guess but not applicable for even a child's understanding of investment and subsidies.

Edit: Also, wildly, choosing to count funding green tech like carbon capture as a subsidy.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Carbon capture is dubiously green, there's little evidence it's more than kicking the can down the road, but hey so are tailing ponds and current "remediation" standards. We're very good at overvaluing short term band-aids and not looking the bigger picture.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Okay, and the drastically overcounted billions as noted before?

And the vast majority is counting loan guarantees and preferential rates as subsidies. And instead of calculating the subsidy as say, the difference between the standard and preferential rate, they’ve taken the entire loan value, which is some nonsense accounting, good for rabble rousing I guess but not applicable for even a child’s understanding of investment and subsidies.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can cut down the calculation to the difference between standard and preferential rate and still have enough to build half a dozen geothermal/syngas plants along the Trans-Canada corridor, which will in turn provide a foundation for more industrial expansion and transport infrastructure the west so desperately needs, create tens of thousands of new, high productivity jobs, and future-proof us for generations as a global energy hub. Once they have made back the initial investment+interest, privatize them and let the market do its job, we just need that initial surge to reach escape velocity. You want a Western Canadian moon-shot that can bring the country together, there it is.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

What on Earth are you ball parking the preferential rate, the commercial rate and the difference to come to that conclusion?

My back of the envelope math puts the cost of a half dozen projects at a less than ten million apiece. If you can't find 10 million in funding for a profitable green tech in this day and age, that says there's something sketchy about the projects.

Edit: Jesus, closer to 5 million. If you can't find backers for a project that costs a little more than a year of goaltending from Tristan Jarry, that says a LOT about those projects.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because every time someone says "Hey lets try geothermal" the UCP screams "NO MUST BE NATURAL GAS!!!" Why? Because their donor base doesn't want to spend a decade waiting for returns to break even on a bunch of new infrastructure, they want returns next quarter. The idea of a long-term investment in anything but AI is a non-starter in the current market so something that takes a decade to break even on is completely out of the question. Do you want me to go line by line explaining this to you, or do you even care? We're in the middle of internet nowhere and no one here has the power to make any of this happen. We're at what, 20 replies deep on an obscure forum no of consequence uses? You're not saving the world by casting doubt on a solution no one can see, so why do you care?

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's a delightful irony considering you started the exchange with:

but believing something that is demonstrably false isn’t an “opinion”, it’s a delusion. I find it hard to believe we’re suffering from an epidemic of psychosis for no discernible reason, so where is it coming from and how do we mitigate it.

And then, when we dove into your claims about billions of subsidies, we're down to a handful of millions (in other words, you were arguing for a demonstrably false claim, which according to you is delusional.)

I'm not sure how we mitigate this silliness. Financial literacy? People willing to point out that "hey, those billions aren't quite what you think they are?"

I mean, wild claims like

The idea of a long-term investment in anything but AI is a non-starter in the current market

are just lunacy.

And now, when confronted with the reality of your position its "why do you even care, we're on an obscure forum."

But, why do I care? I'm always curious, you seemed fairly rational at first and I believe we learn best when challenging or examining our ideas, I wondered if you knew something I didn't. It turns out, you just haven't really looked into the things you claim. Maybe you'll examine them a bit more carefully in future? Maybe not. But I believe the only way to mitigate folks believing things that are demonstrably false is rational discourse.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then prove me wrong, because all you've done thus far is prove you don't want to hear answers.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago

Pardon? I've already shown the billions you claim are being spent in non climate externalities are nonsense.

You're now at the point where you're claiming the entire market doesn't plan long term (unless bizzarely, for oil and gas because, I dunno, bad guys.)

So far, the sum total of evidence on your side is "random dude who has no idea how finance and investment work claims none of it works for mysterious reasons."