The uselessness of Canada's climate alarmism

[Anonymous]

The federal parties don't care how much their emissions targets cause pain for average families.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

By Matthew Lau of Sun News Media



Here's why Canada's climate targets are nonsense



There is a consensus in Ottawa that Canada must transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Liberal government says that hitting this target is necessary to "avoid the catastrophic effects of a warming climate," and Erin O'Toole, the Conservative leader, recently made the net-zero target part of his policy agenda as well.



Here's the problem, though: Emissions targets are economic nonsense.



That is, whatever the targets, whatever the timeline, and whatever the plan to achieve them, emissions targets are not grounded in any economic logic. Whenever a politician, activist, or anyone else prescribes them, you can be sure that sensible policy has gone out the window.



As a general rule of economics, and a practical rule by which everybody operates in their daily lives, an activity is worthwhile if its expected benefits are higher than its expected costs. This applies in deciding whether or not to switch jobs, acquire more education, trade in an old car for a new one, or buy an ice cream cone. Deciding what to do about greenhouse gas emissions is no different.



Just as the appropriate number of ice cream cones to be consumed in 2050 depends on the costs of producing ice cream cones and the benefits to consumers of eating them, the appropriate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 depends on the costs and the benefits associated with those emissions. It's this cost-benefit calculation that matters when deciding whether emissions should go up or down.



What the costs and benefits of greenhouse gas emissions are today, or will be in 2050, depend on countless pieces of information beyond the reach of government central planners. It makes no more sense, therefore, for the federal government to set a quantity target for greenhouse gas emissions in 2050, than it does for it to set a target for the number of ice cream cones that should be consumed in 2050.



Importantly, while emissions targets, like ice cream cone targets, do not make sense as a matter of economic principle, some targets are more harmful than others. In the case of net-zero emissions by 2050, according to the federal government's own numbers, hitting the target involves cutting carbon emissions even when the costs of doing so exceed the benefits.



To reach the net-zero target, the federal government is ratcheting the carbon tax up to $170 per tonne by 2030, and imposing other policies — for example, hundreds of millions of dollars in electric vehicle subsidies — that are even more costly.



A 2017 study from the Montreal Economic Institute estimated, very conservatively, that electric vehicle subsidies in Quebec cost taxpayers $288 or more per tonne of emissions reduced. Another estimate, from the Ecofiscal Commission, came in even higher.



By contrast, even according to Environment and Climate Change Canada's own estimates (which are likely far too high), the environmental cost of greenhouse gas emissions is around $50 per tonne today. The figure rises over time, but even in 2030 will be nowhere near the $170 level the federal government has announced.



In other words, not only has the federal government thrown good policy out the window by setting an emissions target in the first place; it has also chosen a target that, according to its own policies and estimates of the environmental costs of emissions, is not worth achieving. The federal government's climate plan, clearly, is economic nonsense.



As a general rule of economics, and a practical rule by which everybody operates in their daily lives, an activity is worthwhile if its expected benefits are higher than its expected costs.

[Anonymous]

Canada may already be carbon neutral, so why are we keeping it a secret?

A conservative estimate of Canada's existing carbon-absorption capacity indicates we could already be absorbing 20 to 30% more CO2 than we emit



https://financialpost.com/opinion/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

Here's a seemingly simple question: Is Canada a net carbon dioxide emitter? You would think so from reading news headlines. We've earned the scorn of environmentalists, NGOs, and media outlets galore, labelled with such juvenile epithets as "fossil of the year" or "corrupt petro-state."



Sadly, lost in all the hyperbole is the actual science. There is nothing quantitative about the vague idea that, as a "progressive nation," Canada should be expected to "do more" to fight climate change.



But therein lies the rub; Canada is poised to immediately do more to combat climate change than almost every other country in the world. How, you ask? Well, by doing more of the same. If that sounds ludicrous, let me explain.



Most Canadians would agree that our response to climate change needs to be scientifically sound, environmentally sustainable and financially realistic, as well as global, comprehensive, and holistic. Right now, our approach is none of those things; the public discourse is driven by a myopic, ideological obsession with carbon emissions alone. What else is there, you ask?



The answer comes from the most recent report (2014) of the Global Carbon Project, which states that global human-induced CO2 emissions were 36 billion tonnes. Of that, 36 per cent stayed in the atmosphere, 27 per cent was absorbed by water, and 37 per cent was absorbed by land.



That's right — absorbed by land! Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.



A conservative estimate of Canada's existing carbon-absorption capacity, based on land area and the global carbon-absorption average, indicates that Canada could already be absorbing 20 to 30 per cent more CO2 than we emit. Using the same calculation, the "Big Four" polluters of China, the U.S., the European Union, and India, which together are responsible for a whopping 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions, release 10 times more CO2 than their combined land area absorbs. Canada doesn't seem very dirty now, do we?



So when was the last time you heard a Canadian political leader, let alone the media, talk about our carbon-absorption capacity? Probably never, because we are currently ignoring that side of the equation, for a couple reasons.



We should seek out new alliances with other large, forested countries, starting with Russia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, Indonesia, and Peru. These countries, and many others, will all benefit from a new approach that rewards carbon absorption, and would bring diverse cultural voices and political interests together around this important climate issue.



Imagine the kind of eco-friendly economy that DRC Congo, Peru, or any other forested country could build by generating carbon credits to sell to Dubai, Singapore, or Luxembourg. Countries on the receiving end of cap-and-trade credits could build entire green economies around conservation, not consumption. Financial pressure to deforest would subside, replaced with incentives to manage our forests and preserve their attendant ecosystems. As a bonus, Canada and its new, green allies could label all our exports as "proudly carbon neutral."



Imagine, too, the possibilities for indigenous people all over the world to leverage their traditional role as protectors of the environment into a feasible economic opportunity. We are constantly looking for ways to bridge gaps between modern society and native cultures, so why not empower indigenous people to take on a leadership role as stewards of the world's precious forests?



Canada must successfully lobby for a world market on carbon-offset credits, where CO2 absorption is part of the equation. The potential impact is huge. Based on the aforementioned estimates of our absorption capacity, and a conservative CO2 price of $40/tonne, Canada stands to gain $10 billion per year. Think about it; we might currently be giving away $10 billion to the rest of the world, including the Big Four polluters, every year, for free.



$10 billion dollars in our coffers could go a long way toward balancing the budget, investing in sustainable energy, providing social programs, incentivizing innovation, renewing infrastructure, and generally improving Canada's fortunes. So when Prime Minister Trudeau meets with provincial, territorial, and indigenous leaders, he owes it to Canadians to put this issue on the agenda. The only thing we're really asking is for our leaders to consider the entire carbon cycle, from emission to absorption, in order to get the "balance sheet" right. Then, and only then, can our best minds get to work on making a climate plan that is fair for all Canadians, and that reflects our true contribution to the world's climate solution.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Canada may already be carbon neutral, so why are we keeping it a secret?

A conservative estimate of Canada's existing carbon-absorption capacity indicates we could already be absorbing 20 to 30% more CO2 than we emit



https://financialpost.com/opinion/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

Here's a seemingly simple question: Is Canada a net carbon dioxide emitter? You would think so from reading news headlines. We've earned the scorn of environmentalists, NGOs, and media outlets galore, labelled with such juvenile epithets as "fossil of the year" or "corrupt petro-state."



Sadly, lost in all the hyperbole is the actual science. There is nothing quantitative about the vague idea that, as a "progressive nation," Canada should be expected to "do more" to fight climate change.



But therein lies the rub; Canada is poised to immediately do more to combat climate change than almost every other country in the world. How, you ask? Well, by doing more of the same. If that sounds ludicrous, let me explain.



Most Canadians would agree that our response to climate change needs to be scientifically sound, environmentally sustainable and financially realistic, as well as global, comprehensive, and holistic. Right now, our approach is none of those things; the public discourse is driven by a myopic, ideological obsession with carbon emissions alone. What else is there, you ask?



The answer comes from the most recent report (2014) of the Global Carbon Project, which states that global human-induced CO2 emissions were 36 billion tonnes. Of that, 36 per cent stayed in the atmosphere, 27 per cent was absorbed by water, and 37 per cent was absorbed by land.



That's right — absorbed by land! Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.



A conservative estimate of Canada's existing carbon-absorption capacity, based on land area and the global carbon-absorption average, indicates that Canada could already be absorbing 20 to 30 per cent more CO2 than we emit. Using the same calculation, the "Big Four" polluters of China, the U.S., the European Union, and India, which together are responsible for a whopping 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions, release 10 times more CO2 than their combined land area absorbs. Canada doesn't seem very dirty now, do we?



So when was the last time you heard a Canadian political leader, let alone the media, talk about our carbon-absorption capacity? Probably never, because we are currently ignoring that side of the equation, for a couple reasons.



We should seek out new alliances with other large, forested countries, starting with Russia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, Indonesia, and Peru. These countries, and many others, will all benefit from a new approach that rewards carbon absorption, and would bring diverse cultural voices and political interests together around this important climate issue.



Imagine the kind of eco-friendly economy that DRC Congo, Peru, or any other forested country could build by generating carbon credits to sell to Dubai, Singapore, or Luxembourg. Countries on the receiving end of cap-and-trade credits could build entire green economies around conservation, not consumption. Financial pressure to deforest would subside, replaced with incentives to manage our forests and preserve their attendant ecosystems. As a bonus, Canada and its new, green allies could label all our exports as "proudly carbon neutral."



Imagine, too, the possibilities for indigenous people all over the world to leverage their traditional role as protectors of the environment into a feasible economic opportunity. We are constantly looking for ways to bridge gaps between modern society and native cultures, so why not empower indigenous people to take on a leadership role as stewards of the world's precious forests?



Canada must successfully lobby for a world market on carbon-offset credits, where CO2 absorption is part of the equation. The potential impact is huge. Based on the aforementioned estimates of our absorption capacity, and a conservative CO2 price of $40/tonne, Canada stands to gain $10 billion per year. Think about it; we might currently be giving away $10 billion to the rest of the world, including the Big Four polluters, every year, for free.



$10 billion dollars in our coffers could go a long way toward balancing the budget, investing in sustainable energy, providing social programs, incentivizing innovation, renewing infrastructure, and generally improving Canada's fortunes. So when Prime Minister Trudeau meets with provincial, territorial, and indigenous leaders, he owes it to Canadians to put this issue on the agenda. The only thing we're really asking is for our leaders to consider the entire carbon cycle, from emission to absorption, in order to get the "balance sheet" right. Then, and only then, can our best minds get to work on making a climate plan that is fair for all Canadians, and that reflects our true contribution to the world's climate solution.

Somebody forward this to Trudeau.

[Anonymous]

He never listens to anyone who disagrees with him.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

The Canadian Energy Research Institute calculates the Clean Fuel Standard(CFS) will cost families an extra $1,400 per year.



Combined with the hike to the carbon tax it's a significant increase to the costs of heat and transportation fuels, so it's really not just on the energy sector, it will be across the country on anything that gets transported or heated. We are a cold weather, very spread-out industrial country – pretty much everywhere you look there will be increased costs, and that will of course partly get taken out of profits and partly get passed on to consumers. When you hear about rebates for individuals, rarely are all these increased costs getting passed down factored into that.

[Anonymous]

The CFS will result in 30,000 job losses nationally, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute.

[cc]

Like as Though We Didn't See This One Coming  ac_biggrin



Kerry Blames Frigid Temperatures and Record Cold on Global Warming



https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1362850893708857350

[cc]

.

[Anonymous]

I thiught AOC would be the first person in Washington to a pants on fire accusation of global warming.

[Anonymous]

riduculous