Business
JAGUAR CHARGES UP I-PACE WITH ALL-ELECTRIC RACE SERIES

Frankfurt, Germany September 12, 2017
After becoming the first premium manufacturer to enter Formula E in 2016, Jaguar has created the world’s first production battery electric vehicle race series.
The Jaguar I-PACE eTROPHY will be the support series for the FIA Formula E championship, taking place on the same weekends at the same city circuits, starting in late 2018.
Exclusively featuring Jaguar I-PACE eTROPHY racecars, the new all-electric series gives racers of the future a chance to showcase their talent, competing on the world stage in zero-emissions motorsport.
The groundbreaking championship will support the launch of the Jaguar I-PACE – Jaguar’s highly innovative five-seat battery electric sports car which hits the road in the same year.
Up to 20 electric I-PACE racecars will be on the grid in the centre of 10 races in global cities such as Hong Kong, Paris, Sao Paolo and New York, giving future Formula E stars the chance to race in the world-first series.
The announcement follows news that the British government is to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2040 and reinforces Jaguar Land Rover’s commitment to electrification – from 2020 all new model lines will be electrified, with either hybrid or battery technology.
Jaguar Land Rover Special Vehicle Operations (SVO) in Warwickshire, UK, will build the racecars. They will be based on Jaguar’s first battery electric vehicle, the I-PACE performance SUV, which will hit the streets in late 2018.
Technical specifications, race calendar and costs for the Jaguar I-PACE eTROPHY will be released in 2018.
Customers interested in hearing more should email [email protected]
Demand is anticipated to be high and places will be awarded on a first come, first served basis from entrants and drivers holding the relevant international race licence.
armed forces
How Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?

To my great surprise I recently noticed that, despite being deeply engaged in wars against at least four determined enemies, Israel doesn’t spend all that much more on their military than Canada does on its forces. What might that tell us about government efficiency?
There’s fairly universal agreement that Canada doesn’t spend enough on its military. But before we can even ask how much we should be spending, we should understand how much we’re already spending. And figuring that out isn’t nearly as easy as I’d expected.
According to the 2025–26 Expenditures by Purpose data released by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence (DND) was allocated $35.7 billion (CAN). However, the New York Times recently reported that Primer Minister Carney’s $9.3 billion increase would bring the total defence-related spending to $62.7 billion – which suggests that, prior to the increase, we were set to spend $53.4 billion (CAN).
So I’ll work with both of those figures: $35.7 billion ($26 billion USD) and the pre-announcement $53.4 billion ($39 billion USD). By contrast, Israel currently spends around $37 billion (USD) on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) which is in the neighborhood of 18 percent of their total budget.¹ The IDF is (literally) getting a much bigger bang for their buck.²
I’m going to compare the military inventories of both countries to get a sense of what a dollar of government spending can get you. I understand that this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison and there are many complicating factors here. But I think the exercise could lead us to some useful insights. First off, here’s a very rough estimate of existing inventories:
I’m sure there are plenty of caveats we could apply to those numbers, including how much of that equipment is actually fit for service on any given day. But they’ll have to do.
In addition, there are currently 68,000 regular troops in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) along with 22,500 reserves, while the IDF employs 169,500 regular troops and 465,000 reserves. They also cost money.
Based on some very rough estimates,³ I’d assess the value of IDF assets at around 2.6 times the value of comparable CAF assets. That means that the IDF – using their procurement systems – would need to spend just $14.4 billion (USD) to purchase the equivalent of the current set of CAF assets.
Now compare that with our actual (pre-increase) expenditures of either $26 billion USD or $39 billion USD and it seems that we’re overspending by either 80 percent or 270 percent.
I think we’d be wise to wonder why that is.
For full context, Israel receives around $3.8 billion (USD) in military aid annually from the U.S.
Speaking of which, for simplicity, I completely left the ongoing costs of ordinance out of my calculations.
If you’re really interested, you can see my calculations here.
Subscribe to The Audit.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Business
Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy

From the Fraser Institute
Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.
The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:
• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.
• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.
• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.
“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.
“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”

Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
-
Alberta6 hours ago
Calls for a new pipeline to the coast are only getting louder
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta is investing up to $50 million into new technologies to help reduce oil sands mine water
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta announces citizens will have to pay for their COVID shots
-
Alberta7 hours ago
Alberta pro-life group says health officials admit many babies are left to die after failed abortions
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
WOKE NBA Stars Seems Natural For CDN Advertisers. Why Won’t They Bite?
-
Business1 day ago
The CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches
-
Business5 hours ago
Canada’s economic pain could be a blessing in disguise
-
espionage3 hours ago
From Sidewinder to P.E.I.: Are Canada’s Political Elites Benefiting from Beijing’s Real Estate Reach?