General Comments on the Hypocrisy of CO2 Demonization
The hypocrisy that exists in this debate always continues to amaze me, so I’m going to lay out a few of the worst examples for your contemplation.
Tankers are banned on the West Coast of Canada to prevent the export of Canadian oil and LNG. Yet tankers bring in more than 600,000 bbls of oil per day along the East Coast of Canada. A lot of that oil is shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway. The same river system that our government officials have no problem dumping incredibly huge volumes of raw sewage into. The same government officials that opposed the Energy East Pipeline which would have offset a portion of those tanker deliveries. Eastern Canada should be pushing to buy Canadian oil rather than have it delivered by tankers from countries that have significantly poorer societal and environmental standards than Canada. We should move away from having our oil delivered by tankers from halfway around the world (Note: shipping is one of the largest sources of pollution (real and CO2)). We should be delivering our oil by pipeline (the safest (remember Lac Magentic) and lowest CO2 emission (for those concerned about CO2) option for moving our hydrocarbon resources) rather than rail.
Our Canadian Federal and Provincial (although not all of them) Governments have decided to go all in on fighting Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Even if you believe CO2 is a problem, Canada leading the charge is ridiculous for a variety of reasons. Our number one trading partner and major competitor (the USA) does not have a carbon tax and has reduced other taxes across the board. Capital is fleeing Canada because our financial climate is not competitive with other jurisdictions around the world. And it’s not just the hydrocarbon industry. And as discussed earlier, Canada is already at a minimum, CO2 neutral (the country absorbs more CO2 than it emits). Removing every industry and every person from Canada would have an unmeasurable effect on the planet’s temperature. So until every other major CO2 emitter on this planet (USA, Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia (OPEC in general), Japan, Australia, etc.) puts in carbon taxes there is no rationale for Canada to be there. The demand for oil is going to continue to rise for an extended period of time. And every barrel of oil that stays in the ground in Canada is a barrel of oil that will be produced elsewhere in countries that don’t have the same stringent emission standards associated with Canada. We are simply exporting and actually increasing global emissions.
The British Columbia Government has decided to fight the Trans Mountain Pipeline by any means possible. The major concerns are environmental. They’re worried about an oil spill along the coast. A valid concern, but the risks have been assessed and determined to be very low. Using the same logic, every large ship (container, cruise, etc.) should be banned from our coastal waters because they also represent an oil spill risk. The current oil export operation has been in place for more than 60 years without a major incident and the technologies have improved significantly over those 60+ years. Of more concern is the emission argument. If you believe the CO2 hype, you should be protesting the huge volumes of coal that are shipped to China and India through Canadian ports (primarily Vancouver). A lot of which is first imported from the US (and is a lower quality, higher emission source than Canadian coal). That coal is burned in inefficient coal power plants that do not use the same cleaner burning technologies that we have developed leading to real pollution (and I’m not talking about CO2). BC and the Federal Government have also put in place huge roadblocks to LNG exports. Exporting LNG would actually be far more effective at reducing greenhouse gas and particulate emissions than many of the uneconomic renewable options by lowering the Far East dependence on coal. US emissions have been dropping and that drop is due primarily to the conversion from coal to natural gas power generation.
The pipeline industry has been unfairly demonized in Canada. Despite being the lowest greenhouse gas emission (and safest) option for moving hydrocarbons around the country, future pipelines will have to factor in both upstream and downstream emissions into their application process. The cement industry in Quebec (a very large emitter) is not required to factor in their emissions. The automobile industry in Ontario is not required to factor in the considerable downstream emissions associated with their product. This is a serious double standard that is fueling anti-Canada sentiment in the West. The oil industry is one of the main drivers (if not the main driver) of the Canadian economy. All the provinces have benefitted significantly from the industry. And a strong hydrocarbon industry is still required in Canada like it or not. There will be no significant equalization payments from western Canada without a strong oil industry. Quite frankly, Alberta is getting fed up with being treated as second class citizens in our own country. We have sadly, willingly exported our future through equalization payments and are now receiving no meaningful help when it’s required. The hundreds of billions of dollars that have been transferred out of Alberta would have gone a long way to setting up a wealth fund like Norway.
Hypocrisy also exists within our governments. Catherine McKenna (Canada’s Environment and Climate Change Minister) has a problem with being called Climate Barbie (a derogatory reference) but has no problem calling anyone who disagrees with her position on Climate Change a “Denier” (an obvious reference that is designed to paint a Climate Change Denier with the same brush as a Holocaust Denier). More recently she has stated that she doesn’t have time for anyone that doesn’t agree with her opinions. Last time I checked, it is the job of elected representatives in Canada to enact ‘good government’ for all Canadians whether they agree with you or not. And I have a simple challenge for Minister McKenna (also Prime Minister Trudeau, Premier Notley and Minister Phillips). Please provide the Canadian public with any actual measured data that shows CO2 is driving the climate and a detailed cost benefit analysis to justify your Climate Change policies. Neither of those challenges can be met since there is no actual data showing that CO2 is a significant climate driver and an official cost benefit analysis hasn’t been laid out to the voters for either the Federal or Alberta Provincial Plans. A crucial part of ‘good government’ is that of proper cost benefit analysis of major policies like the Climate Plans. To fail to do so leaves us in the same, sad situation as Ireland, which went into wind power, intending to cut GHG emissions and costs because ‘wind is free’. Only they found themselves with almost no reduction in CO2, significant cost increases and at risk of 600 million euros in fines for missing EU GHG reduction targets. No cost benefit analysis had been done, as required by law until it was far too late to turn back. ( http://blog.friendsofscience.org/2017/12/09/the-costs-of-wind-energy-in-ireland-new-report/ ) You might also want to quickly review the cost and benefits of the climate plans laid out by Ontario (escalating power costs), Germany (moving back to coal), Australia (scrapped their carbon tax), Europe in general (excessively high power costs), etc.
To be clear, I am actually in favour of renewable energy. There are situations where it makes sense. But the full steam ahead approach is not the way to go. Solar works well in equatorial countries with lots of sun. Solar is not economic for large scale power generation in our northern climates (without huge government subsidies). And as discussed before, both wind and solar are intermittent, expensive and highly unpredictable. Huge amounts of taxpayer money are being wasted on commercial projects that are uneconomic and are not (or at best minimally) actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions when the full life cycle of equipment manufacturing, transportation, etc. are factored in. More research into increasing the efficiencies of renewable energy and clean burning technologies would be money better spent. Our Canadian oil industry (through existing royalties and taxes) would actually be a great source for those research funds. And it is ludicrous to supply government subsidies for electric cars. Anyone who can afford an electric car can afford to buy them without the subsidy. Electric cars also have significant issues in colder climates. Cold weather seriously reduces the distance an EV can travel on a single charge (based on reduced efficiencies and the energy required to heat the car). And in the end, we will only have a marginal effect on the earth’s temperature. The 2015 Paris Accord in total will only reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.048 °C assuming that all nations adhere to their 2030 pledges and that the IPCC “science” is correct. So when we actually get to 2100, we still won’t be able to confirm that the IPCC science was correct because the temperature difference is well below the potential error estimates built into the computer models. Canada’s contribution to that temperature reduction is a whopping 0.00072 – 0.00096 °C based on our 1.5 – 2.0% contribution to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the emission reductions are continued past 2030 through the rest of the century, total temperature reductions would still only be 0.17 °C (again less than the margin of error associated with the computer models (that I will once again remind you are unproven)). The cost of that temperature reduction is estimated to be a trillion dollars per year (assuming the UN and the world governments spend those tax dollars efficiently). Adapting to the climate changes and dealing with real world problems would be a much more effective use of those dollars. Destroying one of Canada’s major industries is not worth that expense. We would be much better off by following the US example and pull out of the Paris Accord (at least until the rest of the world decides to participate meaningfully). The US backed out due to the harm the Paris Accord will inflict on their economy. If the US is not participating in the Paris Accord, Canada’s participation is ludicrous. And chances are we won’t need to worry about those temperature increases. When the GSM effects really kick in, “Global Warming” will be something we will wish was happening. We also don’t have to wait until the end of the century to prove or disprove that scenario. We’ll have that proof within the next few years (versus decades, maybe centuries to prove up the computer models). Temporarily delaying these stupid carbon taxes for a few years would be the prudent approach (which I don’t expect from our governments). If temperatures begin to rise in conjunction with the model projections, then I’ll be the first to admit that there’s a problem with my view. If the temperatures start decreasing, then maybe we can finally scrap this whole “Global Warming” Fraud. The source of the Paris Accord numbers can be accessed at the link below.
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, you don’t have to look any further than the main figures (Al Gore, David Suzuki, Bill Nye, Leonardo DiCaprio, Neil Young, etc., etc.) pushing “Global Warming” using the “Climate Change” nomenclature. They are all fond of telling us to save the planet by doing as they say and not as they do (despite their lack of climate science credentials). Their extravagant lifestyles and “carbon footprints” are an order of magnitude higher than the typical North American citizen. So, they have no problem paying for the rapidly increasing costs associated with the largely unnecessary greenhouse gas green policies. I actually have been heartened by the public outrage being directed towards the University of Alberta over the honorary degree about to be bestowed on David Suzuki. The general public is obviously becoming more and more aware of the damage the environmental movement’s singular focus on CO2 has been doing to our economy without any actual meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (assuming those reductions are even required). I actually don’t have any issues with David Suzuki preaching on any subject he desires. I do have a problem with him pretending to be a knowledgeable voice on climate change (at least until someone challenges him) and I have a problem with government policy based on the questionable science and unfounded propaganda disseminated by his and other internationally funded environmental groups. I also have a problem with any institution that is willing to bring in a speaker like Suzuki (to discuss climate change) without bringing in a qualified speaker to address the potential inaccuracies and omissions that he tends to leave the audience with.