The uselessness of Canada's climate alarmism

[Anonymous]

Will Mr Kerry lead by example and sell all his mansions and move into a one room solar powered cabin?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Net-zero won't cure the climate but it may kill Canada

It would cost upwards of a trillion dollars to expand nuclear-generated electricity, which is the only plausible, viable net-zero option



Last November the federal government introduced its Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which establishes our pathway towards reaching that goal by 2050. But don't hold your breath. It took a full decade to build 12.5 km of electric light rail in Ottawa, arguably the largest green-energy project in Canada over that time. To electrify the rest of Canada's transportation sector in three decades, as well as our industrial and domestic energy sectors, the new Act starts by convening an advisory board to consult with Canadians on the best pathways to this target . . . tick tock.



Natural Resources Canada says Canadian electrical use is 600 terawatt hours (TWh or trillion watt-hours) annually. What few recognize, however, is that we are already over 80 per cent green with respect to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is primarily due to our abundance of hydro and nuclear power. Nuclear is arguably our greenest source of electricity. It produces essentially no CO2; it has by far the best safety record; and we know how to safely manage nuclear waste. As for wind, despite massive subsidies it currently contributes only four per cent to our grid. It remains intermittent, off-peak and low-grade electricity, only marginally better than solar.



The challenge for net-zero, however, is not greening the remaining 20 per cent of the 600 TWh of electricity that we use. It is the 9700 petaJoules (equivalent to two billion barrels) of oil and gas we burn every year for transportation, industry and heating. Converting this to electrical would require 2000 TWh per year — more than three times our current annual use of electricity. Quite apart from the challenge of electrifying transportation, industry and heating, is a three-fold increase in our green electrical generating capacity even possible? The government's "Mid-Century Long-Term Low-Greenhouse Gas Development Strategy" (Mid-Century Strategy) suggests it is, and the Accountability Act will try to enforce it. But let's take a closer look.



Our hydroelectric capacity has largely been exploited, although the Fraser and Mackenzie rivers remain untamed. Battles over land claims, environmental impacts and daunting costs make B.C.'s Site C and Newfoundland and Labrador's Muskrat Falls perhaps the last projects for big hydro in Canada. Yet the Mid-Century Strategy assumes we double our hydro with 50 to 80 new projects on the scale of Site C.



How about big wind? Germany favours wind but has learned that its inconsistency requires baseload backup with coal-fired thermal plants. In Canada, net-zero with wind would require upwards of 300,000 turbines, or 50 times more than we have now, plus an extensive distribution network for this decentralized system, plus an equivalent thermal generation backup (unless we resolve to drive and heat our homes only on windy days).



Producing this vast number of wind turbines would require considerable quantities of rare-earth metals for the generators. For net-zero wind, we would need the entire global production of neodymium for the next 15 years — for the next 170 years for dysprosium. As it is, the Mid-Century Strategy will complement doubling hydro with up to 100,000 turbines, which will still require five years' global supply of neodymium. Conclusion? Renewables clearly cannot play a significant role in our move towards net-zero.



Offsets by planting trees (also planned in the Mid-Century Strategy) are an illusion once one looks closely at the carbon cycle. The only time Earth experienced a notable reduction in atmospheric CO2 by growing trees was during the Carboniferous Period between 350 and 300 million years ago, when our coal resources were formed. Conversely, the slashing of our forests over the past 200 years and today in the Amazon basin has had no measurable impact on atmospheric CO2.



The large-scale capture and storage of CO2 is only possible (though it remains improbable) for large thermal plants, which of course won't be a feature of our net-zero electrical grid. Capturing emissions from tailpipes or our gas-warmed homes is now impossible and seems likely to remain so.



This leaves nuclear as the only viable option for any plausible net-zero plan. Canada has 19 operating nuclear reactors at four stations, producing 15 per cent of our electricity. Net-zero would require an expansion of this fleet to over 300, operated in about 40 new nuclear power generating stations, and costing upwards of a trillion dollars.



What would we get for these efforts? Net-zero would have no measurable impact on climate, as Canada emits only about 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse gases. The developing world, which emits most, is manifestly more interested in growth, not carbon reductions. Moreover, recent science shows that CO2 is not a significant driver of climate. Even the UN science reports state that the warming experienced up to 1980 was natural, that only part of warming through the 1990s was anthropogenic, and that over the past two decades warming has paused. It also shows no link to extreme weather.



The only sensible option for Canada is to invest our environmental goodwill and dollars where they can have a positive effect, such as for sustainable agriculture, biodiversity and healthy waterways — and into adapting to climate change, for the climate will indeed change. It always has.



Ian Clark is a professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Ottawa.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-net-zero-wont-cure-the-climate-but-it-may-kill-canada

[Anonymous]

Justine's efforts to destroy the middle class by sending resource jobs overseas and making life unaffordable for average Canadians are all in vain while China is only interested in energy security.



China's energy actions speak louder than its climate pledges

https://financialpost.com/opinion/patricia-adams-chinas-energy-actions-speak-louder-than-its-climate-pledges



China is hell-bent on increasing CO2 emissions to meet its often-stated strategic objective of world domination



China's Achilles heel is its dependence on foreign sources for its oil and gas, a vulnerability that the country's super-planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, admitted last year for the first time. In its 2020 annual report to China's official decision-making body, the National People's Congress, it barely mentioned climate change as China instead pledged to "ensure energy security" to "improve our contingency plans in response to major changes in supply and demand at home and abroad."



This year's report, delivered to the People's Congress on March 5, again gave short shrift to climate change — promising only what the West's environmental NGOs decried as "baby steps" towards decarbonization. The focus instead was on the priority of securing energy supplies and China's consequent determination to "promote the development of energy transportation routes, strengthen our energy reserve capacity, and improve transportation services. We will refine energy contingency plans, improve our risk and emergency response capabilities, and strengthen energy security and resilience." The planning and reform commission concluded by promising to "boost oil and gas exploration and development" and "systematically increase our ability to ensure the supply of coal."



China's dependence on foreigners for its oil has grown steadily. In 2008, its dependence on foreign oil reached 50 per cent for the first time. Last year, it was 73 per cent. The trend is especially worrying to China because, while its oil imports increased by 7.3 per cent last year, its domestic production inched up a mere 1.6 per cent. Despite its drive for self-sufficiency, Chinese production since 2017 has stalled at 3.8-3.9 million barrels per day.



Of course, China's most secure form of energy is coal, which in 2019 accounted for 58 per cent of its total energy consumption. That isn't about to stop — certainly not because of hand-wringing in the West about how it imperils the planet. Last year, China's 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power was more than three times the new capacity built in the rest of the world, and another 247 gigawatts of coal power is being planned or developed. China's proposed additional coal plants represent 73.5 gigawatts of power, five times what is proposed in the rest of the world combined.



Developing the fossil fuels that China needs to meet its strategic economic and military goals is a top priority. Climate-change targets just don't figure in China's grand schemes, except for propaganda purposes or to extract subsidies or trade concessions.



President Xi may well promise to do more on climate change in exchange for the West turning a blind eye to its treatment of Uighurs or relaxing tariffs on its exports, and the West may well accept his promises, knowing full well they won't be kept, so as to maintain the pretence of progress on the climate-change file. Climate change is a charade both sides act out for their mutual benefit.



Patricia Adams, an economist, is executive director of Toronto-based Probe International.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

A dose of reality for anti oil dreamers.



https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/if-you-weaken-the-oil-industry-who-will-build-the-complex-energy-facilities-of-the-future/vi-BB1gToa0?ocid=mailsignout

[Anonymous]

The hollowing out of our resource sector and middle class prosperity continues. Sure, China and India should buy thermal coal from Indonesia. Their environmental standards are superior to our own.



Canada will not approve new thermal coal mining projects



Canada will not approve new thermal coal mining projects or plans to expand existing mines because of the potential for environmental damage, Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said on Friday.



"The government considers that these projects are likely to cause unacceptable environmental effects within federal jurisdiction and are not aligned with Canada's domestic and international climate change commitments," he said.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/canada-will-not-approve-new-thermal-coal-mining-projects-environment-minister-2021-06-11/

[Thiel]

The hollowing out of our resource sector and middle class prosperity continues. Sure, China and India should buy thermal coal from Indonesia. Their environmental standards are superior to our own.



Canada will not approve new thermal coal mining projects



Canada will not approve new thermal coal mining projects or plans to expand existing mines because of the potential for environmental damage, Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said on Friday.



"The government considers that these projects are likely to cause unacceptable environmental effects within federal jurisdiction and are not aligned with Canada's domestic and international climate change commitments," he said.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/canada-will-not-approve-new-thermal-coal-mining-projects-environment-minister-2021-06-11/

Not all mines require federal approval.

[Anonymous]

Just weeks ago a majority of Swiss voters said "no" to their government's law to reduce C02 emissions and meet 2015 Paris Accord climate objectives. The Swiss government must now comply with the will of the people instead of the bullying from the Davos crowd and the UN.



https://www.reuters.com/world/china/swiss-voters-decide-pesticides-ban-terrorism-law-covid-19-aid-2021-06-12/

[Anonymous]

Just weeks ago a majority of Swiss voters said "no" to their government's law to reduce C02 emissions and meet 2015 Paris Accord climate objectives. The Swiss government must now comply with the will of the people instead of the bullying from the Davos crowd and the UN.



https://www.reuters.com/world/china/swiss-voters-decide-pesticides-ban-terrorism-law-covid-19-aid-2021-06-12/

Wouldn't it be great if Canadians decided what is best for their own lives instead of elitist globalist progs like Switzerland does.

[cc]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9779781/Climate-change-Just-25-mega-cities-emit-52-cent-worlds-urban-greenhouse-gases.html
Just 25 'Mega-Cities' Produce 52 Per Cent Of The World's Urban Greenhouse Gas Emissions — And 23 Of Them Are In China



Just over half of the world's urban greenhouse gas emissions come from just 25 mega-cities — 23 of which are located in China — a study has reported.



The cities that emit the most greenhouse gases included Handan, Suzhou, Dalian, Beijing and Tianjin in China — but also Tokyo, Japan, and Moscow, Russia.



......  At present, China is running a whopping 1,058 coal-fired power plants — equal to more than half of the world's entire capacity.



.....China's President Xi Jinping has pledged to cap carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 — part of its commitment to the Paris Agreement. [YA, RIGHT!!  :001_rolleyes: ]

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9779781/Climate-change-Just-25-mega-cities-emit-52-cent-worlds-urban-greenhouse-gases.html
Just 25 'Mega-Cities' Produce 52 Per Cent Of The World's Urban Greenhouse Gas Emissions — And 23 Of Them Are In China



Just over half of the world's urban greenhouse gas emissions come from just 25 mega-cities — 23 of which are located in China — a study has reported.



The cities that emit the most greenhouse gases included Handan, Suzhou, Dalian, Beijing and Tianjin in China — but also Tokyo, Japan, and Moscow, Russia.



......  At present, China is running a whopping 1,058 coal-fired power plants — equal to more than half of the world's entire capacity.



.....China's President Xi Jinping has pledged to cap carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 — part of its commitment to the Paris Agreement. [YA, RIGHT!!  :001_rolleyes: ]

Cool post ceec. And the article says seventy percent of GHG come from cities, so those twenty five cities alone account for thirty five percent of global emissions. Thinks about that when our pointless carbon tax goes up every frickin,year.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9779781/Climate-change-Just-25-mega-cities-emit-52-cent-worlds-urban-greenhouse-gases.html
Just 25 'Mega-Cities' Produce 52 Per Cent Of The World's Urban Greenhouse Gas Emissions — And 23 Of Them Are In China



Just over half of the world's urban greenhouse gas emissions come from just 25 mega-cities — 23 of which are located in China — a study has reported.



The cities that emit the most greenhouse gases included Handan, Suzhou, Dalian, Beijing and Tianjin in China — but also Tokyo, Japan, and Moscow, Russia.



......  At present, China is running a whopping 1,058 coal-fired power plants — equal to more than half of the world's entire capacity.



.....China's President Xi Jinping has pledged to cap carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 — part of its commitment to the Paris Agreement. [YA, RIGHT!!  :001_rolleyes: ]

Canadian cities are wasting billions of dollars to make their cities the greenest while Chinese cities spew record amounts of C02. That is so stupid.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9779781/Climate-change-Just-25-mega-cities-emit-52-cent-worlds-urban-greenhouse-gases.html
Just 25 'Mega-Cities' Produce 52 Per Cent Of The World's Urban Greenhouse Gas Emissions — And 23 Of Them Are In China



Just over half of the world's urban greenhouse gas emissions come from just 25 mega-cities — 23 of which are located in China — a study has reported.



The cities that emit the most greenhouse gases included Handan, Suzhou, Dalian, Beijing and Tianjin in China — but also Tokyo, Japan, and Moscow, Russia.



......  At present, China is running a whopping 1,058 coal-fired power plants — equal to more than half of the world's entire capacity.



.....China's President Xi Jinping has pledged to cap carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 — part of its commitment to the Paris Agreement. [YA, RIGHT!!  ]

Canadian families are being forced to sacrifice to save the planet from burning up while developing countries continue to increase emissions......it doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau's climate change plan of making everything more expensive for average Canadians and killing large industrial resource projects and the jobs and revenue they produce have had the affect of increasing C02 emissions. If we had made exporting LNG a priority, we wouldn't need punitive taxes and we would have good jobs and money for services.



A Practical Path to Lowering Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions



The zeal with which many politicians push environmental policies seems in almost inverse proportion to their practicality. The more expensive, unrealistic, utopian and unachievable, the more it animates them. Justin Trudeau and his key ministers are the apotheosis of this tendency, appearing determined to wreck western Canada's economy and ruin the prosperity of millions in an impossible quest to "save the planet." The economic carnage and impoverishment they'll wreak seems almost like a feature rather than a bug, worn like a national hairshirt or display of religious penance. Gwyn Morgan, however, believes it's still possible to craft a Canadian emissions reduction strategy based on facts and economic opportunity rather than ideology and fantasy. Canada, he explains, "can do good by doing well" – reducing global emissions by exporting to eager markets around the world a Canadian natural resource that we have in practically unlimited supply.



At last month's G7 meeting, the leaders of seven of the world's most advanced economies agreed to a greenhouse gas emissions target of "net zero" by 2050. That would require largely phasing out the use of fossil fuels. But how? The common reply is "putting a price on carbon," i.e., imposing carbon taxes everywhere. But unless there's a viable and cost-effective alternative, taxing something people can't do without only makes them poorer.



Policy makers seem to believe that "green power" – mainly meaning wind and solar – is the answer. But the World Energy Data website shows that, after several decades of hype and many hundreds of billions of dollars spent, wind and solar contribute only 3.3 percent of world energy supply. This may come as a surprise, since the richly subsidized wind and solar industries claim a much higher figure for their energy-generating "capacity." This is defined as the electricity that would be generated if the system in question operated continuously at full-speed without any downtime. For solar and wind, this would mean the sun shining all the time and the wind blowing everywhere. In other words, it's a purely theoretical claim, because it's hard to imagine those conditions existing at any time, let alone during cold, calm and dark winter nights –

when the power is most needed.



Ontario power consumers learned this first-hand after policies implemented under the previous Liberal government that subsidized the installation of thousands of costly windmills and solar panel arrays sent the province's electricity price from one of the lowest in North America to one of the highest. In addition to imposing needless costs on millions of ratepayers, this approach drove many of the province's manufacturers south to the welcoming arms of business-friendly, lower-tax U.S. states like Georgia and the Carolinas. Ontario's then-Liberal government had no excuses, because a similar mix of policies had been tried in Spain and Germany and had failed just as spectacularly.



It's clear that 'net zero' is scientifically impossible for the world as a whole, and could only be achieved in selected countries at a staggering cost that would impoverish everyone except the wealthiest and most privileged elites. Still, a substantial emissions reduction is achievable.





Given these realities, it's incredible to think that G7 leaders would agree to base the energy security of their citizens on a plan that defies the irrefutable laws of physics.



What about other alternatives to replace the 84 percent of energy supplied by fossil fuels? World Energy Data lists the following: hydroelectricity contributes 6.4 percent to world energy supply, nuclear 4.3 percent, geothermal and biofuels 1.7 percent. Hydro is a zero-emissions energy source with a long track record, but dams have already been built on many of the world's most suitable rivers and any new dam-building proposal generates massive opposition. (There's even a campaign in the U.S. to remove existing dams – and several have already been torn down.) Nuclear is also a zero-emissions energy source, and it has huge growth potential, but new plants are very capital-intensive and often face strong public opposition. Lastly, geothermal and biofuels are marginal producers that would require years of exponential growth to become meaningful contributors. So it's hard to see how any of those sources could have a material impact in the foreseeable future.



Besides the laws of physics, G7 leaders face another stark reality. The U.S., UK and the 27 EU member countries combined produce just 27 percent of global emissions. Most of the other 73 percent comes from Asian countries. Emissions from China alone equal the G7's 27 percent. And despite President Xi's virtuous green rhetoric, his country built three times more emissions-intensive coal-fired electrical capacity in 2020 than the rest of the world combined. China's energy consumption – and emissions – are going up, as are India's and those of many other developing countries. Meanwhile, based on a green energy fantasy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his G7 counterparts plan to further hobble their own economies, which are already uncompetitive with China.



Should we give up hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? It's clear that "net zero" is scientifically impossible for the world as a whole, and could only be achieved in selected countries at a staggering cost that would impoverish everyone except the wealthiest and most privileged elites. Still, a substantial reduction is achievable. And the biggest opportunity for cost-effective, practical emissions reduction lies in a fossil fuel in practically unlimited supply.



That fossil fuel is natural gas.



Burning coal to generate electricity currently causes 40 percent of global emissions from fossil fuel sources. Converting a coal-fired plant to natural gas reduces its emissions by almost 50 percent. Canada's utilities have already shut down the large majority of their coal-fired units, and the remaining plants' days are numbered. (Just on Monday, Transalta Corp. announced that it had completed the coal-to-gas conversion of the second of its three remaining coal-fired generating stations in Alberta.) But there is vast opportunity to do much more of this globally. We can, as the saying goes, "do good by doing well" by exporting our bountiful natural gas supplies in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to replace coal.



The $40 billion LNG Canada project now under construction in Kitimat, B.C. will reduce Chinese CO2emissions by 60-90 million tonnes per year, the equivalent of shutting down 20-40 coal-fuelled power plants. That's also the equivalent of taking some 80 percent of the cars off Canadian roads. Canada has sufficient gas supplies for many more LNG projects. A decade ago, there were 20 projects proposed. But Canada's Byzantine regulatory approval process, which has earned our country a "can't get anything done" reputation, saw project sponsors giving up after spending billions in preparation and regulatory costs.



There's also opportunity for natural gas to replace some use of crude oil. Oil used for ground transportation and shipping contributes approximately one-third of global emissions. Converting vehicles and ships to natural gas cuts greenhouse gas emissions by up to 25 percent. And that's already happening. Worldwide there are more than 20 million natural gas-fuelled (NGV) passenger vehicles, heavy trucks and buses. Paradoxically, few of those are in the very G7 countries that vow to achieve "net zero." Asia, led by China, India and Pakistan, accounts for the majority of NGVs, no doubt motivated mainly by reducing dangerous urban smog rather than concern about greenhouse gas emissions. Iran has the world's second-largest NGV fleet, which seems surprising until one considers that switching vehicles to less expensive natural gas allows Iran to export more highly profitable crude oil.



Rather than ravaging the living standards of Canadians with carbon taxes and wasting public funds subsidizing green power, here are two things Canada can and should do to reduce both national and global emissions.



First, commission an LNG export task force made up of government, industry and directly affected populations (including First Nations) to streamline the LNG export project approval process. This will make investment in LNG more attractive and help lure back international energy companies and investors. Second, ditch Trudeau's scheme to require all vehicles sold in Canada to be electric by 2035 and instead support the immediate creation of a nationwide NGV filling station network, setting NGV fuel taxes at zero. This will enable the use of NGVs to flourish in Canada.



It's time for a Canadian emissions reduction strategy based on facts and economic opportunity rather than ideology and fantasy.

https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/07/a-practical-path-to-lowering-canadas-greenhouse-gas-emissions/