I'm not sure where exactly to post this, but most folks in the US and Canada can check out where their power is coming from. I work in the power generation industry, and I feel there are many aspects that people just do not understand when it comes to generation and what we need to go fully renewable and/or carbon free.

"Independent system operators" (better known as ISOs) can provide you with your local power information. A nice overview can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_transmission_organization_(North_America)#Independent_system_operators_(ISOs)

I live in New England, so my local info can be seen here: https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/
I can see the projected MW load, how much was scheduled to cover it, the cost per MW, where the power is coming from (at the moment, 5% is oil, 6% is hydro, 12% is "renewables"... as burning trash is considered renewable as much as solar and wind lulz, 19% is nuclear, and 52% is natural gas [NG]), and I can also see the CO2 outputs (which before you make a judgement call to state that yes, NG is the highest producer of CO2, if you look at the MW produced per ton of CO2, it's WAY better than the others!).

If you're in Texas and were there in early '21 during the Uri storm, I'm sure you've heard of ERCOT (https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards). That region has a much higher demand for power in general, and I do find it amusing (yet not at all surprising) that no CO2 info is offered.

In the California area (which is where I hail from), it's displayed here: https://www.caiso.com/supply. I have, at times, found that their imported MW actually were the main supplier, which let's just be honest: they buy power from NV and AZ and that power isn't "clean", but they tote that they're so good to the environment! (Please also note, CA is a huge supplier of CO2 courtesy of all the forest fires.) Also, note that my company literally owns two "peakers" (that's a term for an engine you can turn on and get power out of quickly, without all the slow startup times or shutdown issues that typical power plants have - think of it as a jet engine you just turn on for quick power with really high emissions compared to most plants) that put out more emissions than were typically allowed on permits when they were commissioned, but glorious Newsome realized that balancing the ability to charge your Tesla and having rolling blackouts was a bit precarious. Also alsø: if you look at the CaISO page, the geothermal output is all my company. That range of plants takes the grey water from SF and reincorporates it into the geysers to keep up the 100% clean output.

So, after the fact, I'll state that I'm a little biased: I grew up in CA, and I'm very conscious about emissions and climate change (and yes, I believe that has been playing into effect for a while). But I also am a realist living near California's little red-headed stepsibling Massachusetts that is trying to shoot their foot for carbon emissions and the like.

But, I wanted to put this out there because I hope that folks (who aren't in the industry) might appreciate the insight, and also learn how to figure out what is going on when you plug your <insert power demand item here>. :)

Dear Mr. Sawatzky,

Both atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) and temperature are increasing at an exponential rate, in lock-step. Atmospheric CO₂ levels during the Eocene have been estimated up to 840 parts per million (ppm); sea levels were close to 60 metres higher than today. CO₂ concentrations are over 425 ppm and still climbing. Pause a moment to consider what this will mean for all coastal cities.

What part of “keep the oil in the ground” that scientists have been shouting for decades do politicians not understand? What part of physics are politicians trying to deny?

I am opposed to allowing more oil tankers near our beautiful, fragile coast. I am vehemently opposed to marring our landscape with pipelines for transporting oil. Yes, $14 trillion dollars is a lot of money, but it will pale in comparison to the economic damage that exacerbating climate change will cause. Carbon capture and storage cannot offset our burn rate with any significance.

Earth has had a remarkably stable climate for tens of thousands of years; burning fossil fuels is destabilizing it.

I ask you to acknowledge that physics cannot be bargained with, show some foresight, protect our children's future, and care deeply about our planet's health. I ask that you tell our Prime Minister in no uncertain terms that selling fossil fuels is the wrong choice for the world and the wrong economic direction for Canada.